Quashed

Smt. Lajjawati v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018WRIA/74870/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order penalizing an Anganbari worker for providing false grandfather details in a survey. The Court held the order per incuriam as it lacked application of mind and failed to follow natural justice, noting factual inconsistencies that exonerated the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 29.11.2011 impugned in Annexure-4 is hereby quashed.

Smt. Lajjawati Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 74870 of 2011

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Lajjawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Saran Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The petitioner before this Court has been an Anganbari worker at center Tehsil Malik District Rampur. At the time when she was served with show cause notice dated 20.10.2011 with a charge of serious discrepancy in discharge of duties by quoting the sentence which manifest the charge. The show cause notice reproduced herein under.

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl

Jherh yTtkorh

vkaxuokM+h dk;Zd=h

dsUnz & HkqM+klh

vkids }kjk ;g ekg flracj 2011 esa egkek;k xjhc ckfydk vk'khZokn ;kstuk ds rgr dfri; vkosnu i= izkIr djk;s x,A buesa ls fuEu vkosnu&i= esa dfe;ka mHkj dj vk;h gS ftldk fooj.k fuEuor~ gS

¶12

1- dq0 :ch ds nknk e`rd gSA

¶13

bl izdkj Li"V gS fd vki }kjk vkosnu&i= Hkjokus esa ykijokgh cjrh x;h gSA vki mlh xkao dh fuoklh gS rFkk vkidks gj ifjokj( gj ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh csgrj tkudkjh gksrh gSA fQj Hkh mDr deh ls Li"V gS fd vki }kjk ;k rks vkosnu Hkjus esa rF;ksa dks /;ku ugha fn;k x;k ;k fQj fdlh nqjfHk laf/k ds rgr vik= dks ykHk izkIr djkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA

¶14

vr% ;g uksfVl bl vk'k; ls izsf"kr gS] izkfIr ds lkr fnu ds vanj viuk fyf[kr dFku izLrqr djsa fd D;wa u

¶15

%& vkosnu esa xyr tkudkjh izkIr djkus(

¶16

%& vkosnu dk HkfyHkkafr ijh{k.k u djus(

¶17

%& vik= dks ;kstuk dk ykHk igaqpkus dk iz;kl djus ds vkjksi esa nks"kh

¶18

ekurs gq, vkids fo:) fof/kd ,oa vuq'kk"kukRed dk;Zokgh dh tk,A ;fn fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa vkidk tckc izkIr ugh gksrk gS rks ;g le>k tk,xk fd vkidks dqN ugh dguk gS rFkk ,drjQk dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA iz"Bkadu fn0

¶19

izfrfyfi &

¶20

1- {ks=h; eq0la0 dks bl funsZ'k ls fd uksfVl dh izfr rkfey djkdj jlhn izLrqr djsaA

¶21

2- ftyk dk;ZØe v0] jkeiqjA

¶22

The petitioner gave reply to the same stating that it was a mistake and prayed that she should be forgiven for such mistake and she will not commit such mistake in future. It transpires from the counter affidavit that some inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and allegations were found to be true and therefore, the action impugned was taken. However, the same has been denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit. From the perusal of the order impugned also there is nothing suggestive of what has been factually averred in Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit as there is no reference to any inquiry report in the order impugned and even if it is assumed as to what has been stated in Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit to be true that there was some inquiry, then in that circumstances the petitioner should have been afforded at least an opportunity to show cause but nothing of the sort was done in the matter. It has been stated that the reason assigned in the impugned order is that because of the mistake committed by the petitioner as per the show cause notice to the charge some ineligible person has been given benefit of the scheme which was meant for below poverty line but it does not reflect as to whether Kumari Rubi in any manner was not of BPL category. In paragraph-10 of the writ petition it has been stated that father of Kumari Rubi namely, Natthu is already having BPL card and she in the survey was found to be in that category. There is no specific denial that the father of Kumari Ruby was not

¶23

having a BPL card and has died in the year 2002 therefore, she was not entitled for the benefit of aforesaid scheme. This according to the Court does not appeal to reason, rather runs counter to the very charge in which it has been stated that the said sentence has been relied upon on to give such benefit and has amounted to serious irregularities on the part of the petitioner. Once in the enquiry it has come to be held that her grand-father had in fact died then this Court fails to understand how the charge could sustain. It is found that the grand-father had died and the petitioner committed mistake in giving the name of her grandfather. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court all the charges fall on the ground.

¶24

In view of the above it can be safely concluded that the authority concerned has absolutely not applied its mind while passing the order impugned and even otherwise cyclosyled order cannot be sustained in law. This Court has repeatedly held that the sterotyped cyclostyled order cannot be appreciated and the authority while passing the order that has an adverse effect upon the interest and rights of the party, must keep in mind that it should be an order with due application of mind. The order impugned therefore, besides lacking merits also cannot be upheld in the manner in which it has been passed. However, since the order is being quashed on merits there is no question of remitting the matter to the authority to decide it afresh.

¶25

The order dated 29.11.2011 annexure-4 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶26

Writ petition stands allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Nadeem Ahmad

Smt. Lajjawati v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lajjawati 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

Smt. Pushpa Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohammad Zaved Mekrani and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Baqir Raza Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Priyanka Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Meenakshi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others