Partly allowed

joint/deputy development commissioner v. mayank babu agrawal

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2018SPLA/84/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal by employer against single judge order reinstating employee. Court held quashing correct but reinstatement with arrears incorrect. Directed inquiry restart with liberty to defend; reinstatement subject to disciplinary outcome. Partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Study direction to restart inquiry with witness examination and liberty to defend within four months; reinstatement with arrears deferred pending disciplinary authority order.

joint/deputy development commissioner Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 84 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Joint/Deputy Development Commissioner Respondent :- Mayank Babu Agrawal Counsel for Appellant :- Subhash Rathi Counsel for Respondent :- Arti Agrawal,Pradeep Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2017, the present special appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. The services of the writ-petitioner were dismissed vide an order dated 30.03.1999, which was challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has held that the inquiry proceeding was held in violation of the principles of natural justice. In fact no oral inquiry was held nor any witness was examined and therefore, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of the dismissal and directed that the writ-petitioner would be reinstated in service with 50% of the arrears of salary. The learned Single Judge has given liberty to the employer to proceed against the writ-petitioner departmentally afresh in accordance with law. The employer being aggrieved, has filed the present special appeal.

¶6

Having heard Ms. Subhash Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the writ-petitioner, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the inquiry was vitiated on account of violation of principles

¶7

-2-

¶8

of natural justice, requires no interference, which is based on appreciation of evidence that was brought on record. We however, find that the operative portion of the order namely the direction to reinstate the writ-petitioner in service with 50% of arrears of salary is incorrect in face of liberty and that liberty was given to the employer to initiate the departmental proceeding afresh.

¶9

We modify the operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in the following manner:

¶10

Once the inquiry is vitiated the natural consequence is for the employer to restart the inquiry from the stage it was found vitiated. We accordingly, direct the Inquiry Officer to conclude the inquiry after examining all the witnesses and after giving liberty to the writpetitioner to defend himself. Such inquiry would be completed within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with the governing service Rules.

¶11

The question of reinstatement with arrears of salary would be subject to final order being passed by the Disciplinary Authority, after conclusion of the inquiry.

¶12

We find that the writ-petitioner was suspended during the inquiry proceeding, it would be open to the writ-petitioner to apply for subsistence allowance during the inquiry proceeding. If the writ-petitioner applies before the Disciplinary Authority, he will pass appropriate order in

¶13

-3-

¶14

accordance with Rules within a period of two weeks.

¶15

The special appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.2.2018 Lbm/-

¶17

(Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.)

joint/deputy development commissioner v. mayank babu agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

joint/deputy development commissioner v. mayank babu agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Dular Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Lachin Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S P.B. Enterprises and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

dinesh singh sharthi Vs c/m patel smarak inter college through its manager and others

meera devi Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others