Disposed

Raja Ram Sharma v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2018WRIA/42817/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order granting 50% subsistence allowance on the grounds that the State's appeal against acquittal was erroneously relied upon and the relevant aspects of approval under the UP Intermediate Education Act had not been adjudicated. The Court directed the D.I.O.S. to pass a fresh reasoned order after complying with disciplinary procedure. The judgment is disposed of by remi

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21.06.2003 was set aside; the petitioner was directed to file a fresh objection to the D.I.O.S.; the D.I.O.S. was directed to summon a response and pass a fresh reasoned order within f

Raja Ram Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42817 of 2003

¶3

Petitioner :- Raja Ram Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Narain Shukla,N.K. Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.S.Chauhan,R.B. Sharma,V.S. Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

By a separate order passed today in Writ Petition No.55693 of 2005 the orders dated 08.04.2005 and 29.06.2005 have been quashed. The present writ petition had been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 21.06.2003 passed by the D.I.O.S, Meerut providing for payment of 50% subsistence allowance, from the date of that order.

¶6

The petitioner's grievance appears to be that he was entitled to full salary payment as his suspension order was never approved within a period of 60 days contemplated under Section 16G(7) of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). Also, in any case the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the consequential action taken by the Disciplinary Authority were grossly perverse.

¶7

In this regard it is seen that the petitioner had worked as a Clerk at the institution established and managed by respondent no.5. He was first suspended from service on 07.07.1985 where after a charge sheet was served on him on 11.07.1985 containing six charges pertaining to embezzlement/misappropriation of students fee. In respect of the charge of embezzlement it also appears an FIR was lodged against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.6228 of 2002 (arising out of Case Crime No.198 of 1985), under Sections 409, 420, 471, 406 I.P.C, P.S. Kotwali, District Meerut. While the petitioner claims that he filed a reply refuting the charges levelled in the domestic enquiry, those proceedings were concluded in violation of law inasmuch as neither the relevant adverse material was supplied to him nor the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was made available to him at the relevant time.

¶8

The inquiry officer submitted his report on 15.10.1985 holding the petitioner guilty on all six charges. The disciplinary authority i.e Committee of Management issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to impose punishment. Though the petitioner was aggrieved by the conduct of the inquiry officer as

¶9

also the disciplinary authority, it is a fact that on 6.4.1986, the Committee of Management passed a resolution to dismiss the petitioner from the service. It also appears that on that date, there did not exist any approval to the punishment order by the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut. The matter remained pending where after the petitioner appears to have filed a writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ. No.12291 of 2003), being aggrieved by the non-payment of subsistence allowance as also denial of reinstatement since according to the petitioner he had been acquitted of the criminal charges by the court of criminal jurisdiction and therefore he was liable to be exonerated of charges in the disciplinary proceeding.

¶10

Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, this Court disposed of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12291 of 2003 with the following direction:-

¶11

"In the aforesaid circumstances it is directed that in case if the petitioner files a fresh comprehensive representation with regard to his grievance raised in the writ petition before respondent no.2 District Inspector of School-II, Meerut within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law by a speaking order expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of filling of the representation.

¶12

With these directions this writ petition is disposed of."

¶13

In the consequential representation filed by the petitioner, he specifically prayed for the relief of reinstatement as also for payment of arrears of salary.

¶14

However, by order dated 21.6.2003, the District Inspector of Schools II, Meerut passed an order providing for payment of 50% of subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the pendency of the State's appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the criminal court, in the case of the petitioner.

¶15

In such facts, it has been submitted that the order dated 21.06.2003 is wholly illegal inasmuch as neither there was any valid suspension of the petitioner beyond the period of 60 days from 07.07.1985 nor the punishment order passed by the Committee of Management dated 29.06.2005 ever came to light inasmuch as no prior approval was obtained from the D.I.O.S. was obtained before imposing that harsh punishment. Relying on the provision of Section 16G(7) of the Act it has been submitted that the suspension order was not valid beyond a period of 60 days. Then it has been submitted in Chapter III of Regulation 31 under the Act no punishment including that of dismissal awarded to the petitioner could be awarded except with prior approval of the D.I.O.S. or the Regional Inspector. In

¶16

so far as there did not exist any such approval, the punishment order dated 06.04.1986 could not have been approved.

¶17

In any case, it has been submitted that D.I.O.S. has failed to exercise his jurisdiction and examine the relevant aspect while passing the impugned order and has provided for payment of 50% subsistence allowance during pendency of the State appeal against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner. Alternatively it has been submitted, since the State appeal against petitioner's acquittal has already been dismissed, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with full backwages.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel appeared for the State and Sri Vibhu Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the Committee of Management submitted that the D.I.O.S. has not erred in providing for 50% subsistence allowance during pendency of the State Appeal.

¶19

In so far as the impugned order is based on the reasoning that the State's appeal against the acquittal was pending, which reasoning in the first place is wholly erroneous and no finding of fact appears to have been recorded and no adjudication appears to have been made affecting submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the relevant aspects pertaining to approval had not been adjudicated, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶20

(i) The order dated 21.06.2003 is set aside.

¶21

(ii) Petitioner may file a fresh objection to the D.I.O.S. II, Meerut raising such grounds as he may be advised to question the correctness of the punishment order dated 06.04.1986.

¶22

(iii) The said representation may necessarily be filed within a period of two weeks from today alongwith certified copy of this order.

¶23

(iv) Upon filing of such representation, the D.I.O.S. will necessarily call for a response for the Committee of Management which may be filed necessarily within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such notice (accompanied with a copy of the representation filed by the petitioner).

¶24

(v) Upon receipt of such reply the D.I.O.S. may allow one opportunity to the petitioner to file his response, if any, within a period of two weeks there from.

¶25

(vi) The D.I.O.S. may pass a fresh and reasoned order strictly in

¶26

accordance with law.

¶27

(vii) Such order may itself be passed within a period of four months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner.

¶28

It is made clear that the fresh order to be passed by the D.I.O.S. may not be prejudiced on merits by any observation made in this order.

¶29

Order Date :- 19.11.2018 Shahroz

Raja Ram Sharma v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram Sharma 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

Sawanley Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. through the Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Up and Ors.

M/S Vandana Distributors Vs the Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P.

Ram Bir Singh Vs the Commandant Vith Battalian P.A.C. Meerut and Others

Krishan Pal Singh Vs the Divisional Forest Officer and Others

Pitambar Dutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others

The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs S/S Kamta Prasad Braj Mohan Lal