Allowed

Govind Prasad Pandey v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2018WRIA/14958/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judge allowed petitioner a 30-day extension to file an appeal challenging a dismissal penalty order, permitting meritorious adjudication without delay consideration, while rejecting quashment of the order and retaining interim protection pending appeal filing.

What did the court decide?

Allowed prayer to file appeal within 30 days; rejected quashment prayer; ordered appellate authority to decide on merits without considering delay; granted 30-day extension to challenge penalty order.

Govind Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14958 of 2006

¶3

Petitioner :- Govind Prasad Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Tiwari,Nar Singh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Amendment application has been filed seeking amendment in the prayer. Various issues of fact have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Sri Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Basti could not be challenged in the writ petition. He seeks leave to challenge the same before the appellate authority.

¶6

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel raises issues on the merits of the case and has tried to justify the order impugned in the writ petition dated 10.02.2006. The order dated 10.02.2006 imposes a major penalty upon the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the competent authority. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that the indictment of the petitioner was on most serious charges. The charges having been proved and occasioned a major penalty of dismissal. Moreover, petitioner has not disputed the charges. He further contends that the findings of the enquiry report on the merits of the charges against the petitioner have not been challenged and have attained finality.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authority had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He contends that the punishment imposed upon an employee can be reviewed by the competent authority.

¶8

Sri Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges against the petitioner are false. He also contends that no entry has been expunged till date. Though he fairly concedes that these issues have not been raised in the instant writ petition. He seeks time to file an amendment application challenging his indictment by the enquiry officer. He further states that the authority did not have the jurisdiction to pass the order. Sri Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not challenge the order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Basti due to inadvertence. He further submits that the petitioner

¶9

is retiring on 31.10.2018.

¶10

A number of factual issues have been raised along with issues of jurisdiction, it will be appropriate for the appellate authority to consider the same. Faced with this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner desires to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal. However, the appeal would be barred by limitation due to bonafide but misconceived institution of the writ petition.

¶11

In view of the submissions, raised at the bar, it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal of the order within a period of 30 days. It shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Basti as well as the order dated 10.02.2006. The appellate authority shall entertain the challenge to both the orders in case the petitioner assails them in appeal. The appellate authority shall decide the issues on merits without going into the question of delay. An interim order was granted by this Court on 10.03.2006. Considering the aforesaid facts, till the final decision of the appeal, the order dated 10.03.2006 shall remain operative.

¶12

At this stage, the prayer for quashment of the order dated 10.02.2006 is rejected.

¶13

It is clarified that the Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions made in the writ petition nor has judged this issue on merits. It is for the authority to decide the controversy on merits after independent application of mind and addressing the issues raised by the petitioner.

¶14

In case, such appeal is not filed, the interim protection shall stand recalled.

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Dhananjai

Govind Prasad Pandey v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Prasad Pandey v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Amarjeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Seeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Purushottam Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naresh Chand Verma Vs Commissioner Meerut Division and Others

Nanak Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Nisha Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others