Upendra Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
In a writ petition challenging orders of recovery for financial loss, the court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Rule 13 of the UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The court granted directions on the timeline and merits review for the revision.
What did the court decide?
The petitioner must file a revision under Rule 13 of the UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 within one month. The revision must be decided on merits without considering delay wi
What the court decided
Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20695 of 2018
Petitioner :- Upendra Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Singh,Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S. Shekhar
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The petitioner was found guilty of causing financial loss to the corporation. On the footing of the aforesaid indictment by an enquiry, a sum of Rs.1,13,399/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The amount has been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner in the meantime took the order of recovery in appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal by order dated 4.6.2018. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.2018 passed by the appellate authority and the order of recovery dated 22.2.2017 has instituted in the instant writ petition.
Sri V.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection. He submits that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the competent authority under Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as applicable to the respondent corporation.
Faced with the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the instant reliefs sought in the writ petition at this stage. He, however, contends that because of bona-fide but misconceived legal advice, the petitioner approached this Court directly.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the competent authority under Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
What period is prescribed for filing such a revision and what is the procedure for its disposal?
Whether the writ petition can be disposed of in the light of the existence of the alternative remedy?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Upendra Nath Singh
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- respondent
4 Others
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIA/20695/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court