This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging a petitioner's removal from service due to unauthorized absence. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of fact regarding dereliction of duty and held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entertained.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51432 of 2009
Petitioner :- Shyam Narayan Dubey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and the learned standing counsel for the State respondent.
Due to unauthorised absence from duty in the months of October, November and December, 2002 and January, February and March, 2003, the petitioner was suspended and disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Competent Authority. The Inquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Appointing Authority i.e. Regional Manager who found the petitioner guilty and passed the impugned order dated 5.8.2006 removing the petitioner from service.
Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Pradhan Prabandhak, Varanasi Division which was dismissed by order dated 5.7.2007. Against that order, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the Chairman.
Aggrieved with these aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Perusal of the impugned orders shows that concurrent finding of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record has been recorded that the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly for the whole months of October and November, 2002, 11 days in December, 2002, 7 days in January, 2003, 8 days in February, 2003 and 11 days in March, 2003 apart from days on which he remained on leave.
Consequently, the petitioner who was driver, has been found guilty of unauthorised absence from duty and dereliction in duty. The findings of fact recorded in the impugned orders, do not suffer from any perversity. Therefore it cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 11.12.2019 Arif
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Appointing Authority regarding unauthorized absence and removal from service under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the findings of fact in the impugned orders are perverse or liable to be set aside in a writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyam Narayan Dubey
State of U.P.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
