Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Ordered to Recover Financial Loss from Employee

The case of Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Lucknow & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Yadav & Anr. deals with the legality of a disciplinary action taken against an employee, Vijay Kumar Yadav. The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation (UPFC) challenged a decision of the High Court of Allahabad. The core issue revolved around the recovery of Rs. 2,46,922.56 from the respondent, which was determined as a financial loss to the corporation.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether the punishment order for recovery, which was upheld by the Enquiry Officer, should have been maintained by the High Court.

Background of the Case

The case originated when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Vijay Kumar Yadav, an employee of the UPFC. The allegations included financial irregularities that resulted in a loss of Rs. 2,46,922.56 to the corporation. The Enquiry Officer, after a detailed investigation, concluded that this charge was indeed proven.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-stagnation-benefits-for-punjab-state-power-corporation-engineers/

However, the Disciplinary Authority, without issuing a separate notice on the disagreement over other charges that were not proven, proceeded with a broader punishment order. The High Court later set aside the punishment order, holding it to be in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Arguments by the Appellant

The Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation contended that while some charges against the employee were not established, the financial loss of Rs. 2,46,922.56 was duly proven. The corporation argued that the High Court should have maintained the punishment order for this amount, even if other charges were disregarded.

Arguments by the Respondent

Vijay Kumar Yadav argued that the entire disciplinary action was flawed due to the failure to issue a notice regarding the disagreement on some charges. He maintained that once the punishment order was deemed unlawful for procedural reasons, the High Court was correct in striking it down entirely.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in setting aside the punishment order entirely. The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s ruling and upheld the recovery of Rs. 2,46,922.56, stating:

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-promotion-eligibility-of-superintending-engineers-in-up/

“Once the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56 was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed that financial accountability must be upheld in disciplinary proceedings. The case highlights the importance of ensuring procedural fairness while also maintaining institutional integrity. Ultimately, the court directed that the amount be deducted from the respondent’s retirement benefits.

Petitioner Name: Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation.
Respondent Name: Vijay Kumar Yadav.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 23-11-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: uttar-pradesh-forest-vs-vijay-kumar-yadav-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-23-11-2021.pdf