Disposed

Bhav Nath Bakshi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2019WRIA/20348/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired employee sought writ relief to obtain arrears of salary and reinstatement benefits following a disciplinary inquiry that was legally quashed. The court held the reinstatement order to be erroneous and, instead of granting interim relief pending appeal, directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal on its merits.

What did the court decide?

Relief of reinstatement and salary arrears not granted; petitioner directed to approach Commissioner for disposal of pending appeal on merits within two months.

Bhav Nath Bakshi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20348 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhav Nath Bakshi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brajesh Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and 5 and Sri Brajesh Singh who appears for the respondent no. 2 and 3.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted as a Head Clerk in Nagar Palika Parishad, Chitrakoot Dham, Karvi, since 1988 and he retired on 31.12.2016. The then Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Chittrakoot Dham, Karvi, got lodged a false F.I.R. against the petitioner in case Crime No. 930 of 2014 under Sections 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., and 3 (1) X of the S.C./S.T. Act, at P.S. Karvi, and the petitioner was arrested thereafter and placed under suspension on 2.12.2014 itself. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for alleged misbehaviour with the then Executive Officer. He was served a charge sheet on 31.3.2015 which he replied denying the charges on 21.9.2015. As he was in jail w.e.f. 16.9.2015 he also requested for change of the Inquiry Officer because the then Inquiry Officer, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Rathore was also the witness in the criminal case lodged by the Executive Officer.

¶7

After considering the reply of the petitioner the respondent no. 2, the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, revoked the suspension order on 28.4.2016. The petitioner was reinstated but he was not being given his salary and not being allowed to attend the office. He filed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35793 of 2016: Bhav Nath Bakshi Vs. State of U.P. and others which was disposed of on 3.8.2016 with a direction to the District Magistrate, Chitrakot to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders.

¶8

The District Magistrate passed an order on 5.12.2016 by which he cancelled the order passed by the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, dated 3.8.2016 reinstating the petitioner and also directed further inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report on 29.12.2016.

¶9

The Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 30.12.2016 directing the petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice within 24 hours. The petitioner alleges that he filed a reply to the show cause notice, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-12 to the writ petition and taking into account his reply, the then Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, set aside the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and directed conclusion of disciplinary proceedings by reinstating the petitioner who was then under suspension and for making the payment of arrears of salary on the condition that it would be dependent on the final order of acquittal passed in the criminal case pending against the petitioner.

¶10

The petitioner had in fact reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.2016 and, therefore, after the order dated 31.12.2016 he did not attend the office but made representations on various dates asking the respondents to pay his arrears of salary and to treat him as reinstated in service and to release his Gratuity, G.P.F., Pension etc., but nothing was done by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner has been forced to approach this Court again praying for issuance of mandamus directing to the respondents to release his arrears of salary as well as post retiral dues and to treat the petitioner as reinstated in service with all benefits as per the order of Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad dated 31.12.2016.

¶11

The learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 has pointed out from the counter affidavit that the petitioner never submitted any reply to the show cause notice issued to him on 30.12.2016, but the then Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, passed a non speaking order on 31.12.2016 illegally quashing the disciplinary

¶12

proceedings and directing the reinstatement of the petitioner. The Nagar Palika Parishad, being aggrieved by the order passed by the then Chairman has filed appeal before the Commissioner of the Division which is pending disposal.

¶13

A copy of the memo of appeal dated 2.3.2017 filed by the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, against the decision of the Chairman dated 31.12.2016 is annexed to the counter affidavit.

¶14

It has also been submitted on the basis of counter affidavit that since the appeal is pending the relief as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted to him.

¶15

In rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, in paragraph 11, the petitioner does not deny the averments of counter affidavit that he had not filed any reply to the show cause notice dated 30.12.2016. He only says that he submitted a reply to the charge sheet denying all allegations and, therefore, respondent no. 2, the Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, finding Inquiry Officer's report to be without any basis had set aside the disciplinary proceedings and directed reinstatement of the petitioner.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the alleged reply to the show cause notice which the petitioner has filed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition in fact is a reply to the charge sheet and no reply to the show cause notice has been filed by the petitioner before the Chairman and, therefore, it is apparent that the Chairman's order dated 31.12.2016 has been passed without correct appreciation of the controversy as a mention has been made that the petitioner replied to the show cause notice in the order dated 31.12.2016. He has also read out several paragraphs of the memo of appeal filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, against the order dated 31.12.2016 before the Commissioner of the Division.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the pleadings on record,

¶18

it has come out that the criminal case is still pending against the petitioner in pursuance of the F.I.R. that was lodged on 2.12.2014 by the then Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad.

¶19

It is also admitted position on record that the appeal filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, against the order dated 31.12.2016 is still pending before the Commissioner of the Division.

¶20

There is no interim order by the Commissioner of the Division on the appeal filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, but at the same, time this Court is convinced that the order passed by the Chairman Nagar Palika Parishad, dated 31.12.2016 has been passed on incorrect appreciation of facts therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner of the Division to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits, said to be pending before him since March 2017, within a period of two months from the production of a certified copy of this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.1.2019 Md Faisal

Bhav Nath Bakshi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhav Nath Bakshi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs Managing Director U.P. State Road Transport, Lucknow and 2 Others

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

Ram Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru the Secy. Basic U.P. at Lkw. and Ors.

Anil Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Virendra Kumar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.