Allowed

Mehandi Hasan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2018WRIA/17273/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a disciplinary authority cannot ignore an enquiry report submitted by an officer appointed in his individual capacity merely because he was subsequently transferred. The impugned order directing a fresh enquiry was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 4.5.2018 quashed; direction to disciplinary authority to decide on accepting the enquiry report submitted by Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma.

Mehandi Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17273 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mehandi Hasan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Giri,Chandrachud Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Following orders were passed in the matter on 14.8.2018:-

¶6

" Grievance of the petitioner is that though disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against him in the year 2016 and an enquiry report has been submitted on 20.3.2018, but without passing any order or recording reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has directed a fresh enquiry to be conducted in the matter.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions, by the next date fixed.

¶8

Put up in the additional cause list on 23.8.2018. "

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions from Divisional Forest Officer, Moradabad, according to which Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma was transferred from Bijnor on 11.8.2017, and as per the respondents, he seized to have any jurisdiction to conduct enquiry thereafter. As per the disciplinary authority, Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma was expected to have handed over the enquiry to the incumbent, who joined at Bijnor. Since this was not done by the enquiry officer, as such the disciplinary authority has ignored the enquiry report and has directed a fresh enquiry to be conducted.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Van Rakshak at Amroha Forest Division. As no Deputy Divisional Forest Officer was posted at Amroha, therefore, enquiry was assigned to Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma, who was posted at Bijnor. Order dated 15th June, 2017 is on record of the writ petition, in that regard. From the aforesaid order, it is clear that Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma was not appointed as an enquiry officer for the reason that he was posted at Amroha. Rather, the enquiry officer was appointed in his individual capacity, since no officer in the Division itself was available. In such circumstances, the mere fact that Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma was transferred would not be of any consequence.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, places reliance upon a Government Order dated 29th March, 1990, as per

¶12

which where the enquiry officer is appointed with reference to his post then on the event of his transfer, a fresh enquiry officer would have to be appointed. The aforesaid Government Order, however, has no applicability in the facts of the present case. The appointment of the enquiry officer is not with reference to any post, but is in his name and showing his posting as the UpPrabhagiya Vanadhikari, Bijnor. Once Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma has been appointed as enquiry officer and he has submitted the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority can either accept the report or can record reasons for his disagreement, in view of the law laid down in Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra, 1998 (7) SCC 84. It is not open for the disciplinary authority to ignore the enquiry report and to pass order for holding a fresh enquiry.

¶13

This writ petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 4.5.2018 stands quashed. The disciplinary authority is directed to take a decision whether or not to accept the enquiry report submitted by Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma, and proceed further, in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 30.8.2018 Anil

Mehandi Hasan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehandi Hasan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praval Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neelam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Bharose Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Parmendra Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Praduman Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anjila Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another