Disposed

Rajkumar Gangwar v. Sri. Venkateshwar Lu I.A.S. Principal Secretary, Irrigation , Govt U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2020CAPL/2646/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application regarding alleged disobedience of writ orders concerning suspension and arrears of subsistence allowance, the court found no wilful non-compliance after affidavits indicated payment and reinstatement. The applicant was permitted to join duty effectively.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was permitted to join his duties forthwith with ensured benefits.

Rajkumar Gangwar Vs Sri. Venkateshwar Lu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2646 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajkumar Gangwar Opposite Party :- Sri. Venkateshwar Lu I.A.S. Principal Secretary, Irrigation , Govt U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjit Saxena

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 26.06.2020 and 13.07.2020 passed in Writ-C No.4859 of 2020 (Rajkumar Gangwar v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference, the relevant extract of order dated 26.06.2020 and 13.07.2020 are quoted as under:-

¶7

Order dated 26.06.2020

¶8

"Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranjit Saxena, submits that the petitioner was suspended pending inquiry vide order dated 27.03.2019 but he is not being paid his subsistence allowance.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 is granted two weeks time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶10

Lay as fresh on 13.07.2020.

¶11

The respondents shall pay up-to-date subsistence allowance including arrears to the petitioner within one week and regularly pay the same, so long as the petitioner remains under suspension.

¶12

Let a copy of this order be communicate to the Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Chief Engineer, Government of U.P., Lucknow by the Joint Registrar (compliance) within 48 hours."

¶13

Order dated 13.07.2020

¶14

"The present petition has been filed challenging the suspension order dated 27th March, 2019. The counsel for the petitioner argues that three persons of a Committee were suspended. He submits that the petitioner was a member of an Examination Committee and with regard to certain allegations on the conduct of the examination, all the three persons of the Committee were placed under suspension and FIRs were also lodged. He further submits that despite more than one year having passed neither the petitioner has been paid any subsistence allowance nor has any charge-sheet been issued, which is nothing but a violation of rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

He further states that this Court vide order dated 26.6.2020 had directed the payment of subsistence allowance within a period of one week, however, the same has not been complied with. The petitioner in this regard brought on record the facts regarding nonpayment by means of a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record. Sri Ranjeet Saxena further argues that in respect of other two members of the Committee, the

¶16

Lucknow Bench of this Court has already passed orders in Service Single No. 5762 of 2020 (Rameshwar Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.) and Service Single No. 7361 of 2020 (Ram Raj v. State of U.P.), whereby the Lucknow Bench of this Court has stayed the suspension order with liberty to conclude the departmental enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner argues that on the similar grounds, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit as have been accorded to the other two members.

¶17

Considering the facts as argued before this Court, the writ petition is disposed off with liberty to conclude the disciplinary enquiry, in accordance with law. Till the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the suspension order of the petitioner dated 27.3.2019 shall remain stayed.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed off with the said direction.

¶19

Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of the Allahabad High Court shall be accepted as a true copy of this order."

¶20

On the matter being taken up today, Shri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has pressed the affidavit of compliance dated 15.10.2020 and submits that services of the applicant has been reinstated vide order dated 24.09.2020. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, which reads as under:-

¶21

"9. That, by means of the office letters dated nos.864 and 952, it has been intimated that the subsistence allowance for the month of August, 2019 and its arrears from November 2019 to July 2020 amounting to Rs.3,08,442/- has also been paid to the petitioner through concerned treasury on 15.09.2020.

¶22

That, the petitioner was in jail from 27.07.2019 to 23.10.2019 and was unauthorizedly absent from his duties from 05.04.2019 to 26.07.2019 and from 24.10.2019 to 31.10.2019 and for this reason, the subsistence allowance has not been paid to him.

¶23

That, so far as the liberty to conclude the departmental enquiry in accordance with law, is concerned, it is humbly submitted that the Charge Sheet was served upon the petitioner on 07.08.2020 in the departmental enquiry calling for his explanation alongwith documentary evidence in respect of the charges levelled against him by 24.09.2020, but the petitioner did not submit any explanation in response to the same, therefore, by letter dated 02.09.2020 another opportunity has been granted to him for filing explanation to the Charge Sheet served upon him so that the departmental enquiry may be concluded; failing which final Enquiry Report may be submitted against the petitioner assuming that the petitioner has nothing to say in the matter."

¶24

In this backdrop, Shri K.R. Singh submits that so far as the subsistence allowance is concerned, the same has also been accorded and as such, there is no wilful non compliance of the writ court order.

¶25

On the other hand, Shri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant submits that till now on the spot the applicant has not been permitted to join the duty.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court does not find any reason or occasion to proceed any further under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, as the directions issued by writ court, the applicant is permitted to join the his duties forthwith and accordingly, the benefits shall also be ensured to the applicant.

¶27

With these observations, the contempt application is disposed of .

¶28

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶29

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶30

Order Date :- 10.11.2020 A. Pandey

Rajkumar Gangwar v. Sri. Venkateshwar Lu I.A.S. Principal Secretary, Irrigation , Govt U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Gangwar v. Sri. Venkateshwar Lu I.A.S. Principal Secretary, Irrigation , Govt U.P. and Another

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

Satyendra Goswami @ Kishan Vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad and Another

Manju Yadav Vs Smt. Vineeta Yadav, Examination Controller, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University

Ratan Singh Vs Ekta Singh, S.D.M. and 2 Others

Hriday Narayan Shukla and 3 Others Vs Shri. Dev Pratap Singh, Special Secretary ( Basic Education), Govt of U.P.

Ramesh Chandra Vs Sri Bhanu Chandra Goswami, the D.M. Allahabad

Vyash Verma Vs Abdul Rehman Farooqui, S.D.O.