Quashed

Bharat Lal v. State of U P and 10 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020WRIA/10378/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order dispensing the petitioner's services. It held that such a punitive order based on an inquiry report infringed Article 14 and natural justice, as the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity to explain his side before the Additional Chief Secretary.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 07.08.2020 and 25.08.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary and District Magistrate respectively are quashed, and the matter is remitted to the State Government to decide afres

Bharat Lal Vs State of U P and 10 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10378 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Bharat Lal Respondent :- State Of U P And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

In compliance of the order of this Court dated 08.12.2020, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions that are taken on record.

¶7

The moot question involved in the present petition when it was initially argued was as to whether before passing the order dated 07.08.2020 any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner or not to explain his position qua the inquiry conducted in the matter as the decision has been taken on the basis of an inquiry conducted by Chief Development Officer, Prayagraj submitted on 30.07.2020.

¶8

As per the instructions obtained by learned Standing Counsel under the order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow, the District Magistrate, Prayagraj was directed to take appropriate action in the matter in the light of directions issued and therefore, once the matter came to be examined by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to which the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 14.08.2020 and thereafter, considering the same, the decision has been taken by the District Magistrate to dispense with the services of the petitioner holding

¶9

the charge to be proved vide order dated 25.08.2020.

¶10

The show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition which is signed on 01.08.2020 but it is dispatch date is 04.08.2020 which clearly demonstrate that a parallel proceeding was being drawn by the District Magistrate while the matter was engaging attention of the State Government, upon which the Additional Chief Secretary proceeded to pass an order on 07.08.2020. Quite interestingly the District Magistrate has proceeded to pass the order on 25.08.2020 dispatched on 26.08.2020 clearly stating that the State Government has taken decision vide its order dated 07.08.2020 to dispense with the services of the petitioner. The issue is very clear that the authorities sitting in higher echelons in an administrative set up, must either rest the discretion with the appointing/ competent authority or clearly indicate that the State Government has taken a decision so no discretion lies with the appointing/ competent authority. The manner in which the operative portion of the order of Additional Chief Secretary dated 07.08.2020 is worded, it clearly indicative of a clear executive fiat issued to the District Magistrate to dispense with the services of the petitioner and other such employees having held them guilty of the charges accepting the inquiry report of Chief Development Officer. In order to appreciate the above, it is necessary to quote hereunder paras 7 and 7(i) that deals with the petitioner and similarly situated employees and which runs as under:

¶11

^^7&vr% iz'uxr izdj.k esa eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh] iz;kxjkt dh tkap vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij 'kklu Lrj ij fuEukuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%&

¶12

¼1½ loZJh ykyefu] vkse izdk'k] jkejfr] Hkjr yky] pUnzHkku ,oa jke dSyk'k rduhdh lgk;dx.k dh lsok lekIr dj nh tk;A

¶13

¼2½ Jh v:.k dqekj oekZ] vfrfjDr dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh] fodkl [k.M&gf.M;k iz;kxjkt dh lsok lekIr dj tk;A

¶14

¼3½ Jh t; izdk'k ekS;Z] dEI;wVj vkijsVj fodkl [k.M&gf.M;k] iz;kxjkt dh lsok lekIr dj tk;A

¶15

6& tkap vk[;k ls Li"V gS fd izkDdyu ds vuqlkj dk;Z u djk;s tkus vkSj xyr ,e0ch0 ds dkj.k rduhdh ewY;kdau esa HkkSfrd lR;kiu esa ik;s x;s dk;Z ls :0&3]61]393@& dk vf/kd Hkqxrku gqvk gSA

¶16

7&vr% iz'uxr izdj.k esa eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh] iz;kxjkt dh tkap vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij 'kklu Lrj ij fuEukuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%&

¶17

¼1½ loZJh ykyefu] vkse izdk'k] jkejfr] Hkjr yky] pUnzHkku ,oa jke dSyk'k rduhdh lgk;dx.k dh lsok lekIr dj nh tk;A

¶18

¼2½ Jh v:.k dqekj oekZ] vfrfjDr dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh] fodkl [k.M&gf.M;k iz;kxjkt dh lsok lekIr dj tk;A

¶19

¼3½ Jh t; izdk'k ekS;Z] dEI;wVj vkijsVj fodkl [k.M&gf.M;k] iz;kxjkt dh lsok lekIr dj tk;A

¶20

A bare reading of the aforesaid paragraphs which are penultimate paragraphs of the order of Additional Chief Secretary it can be safely concluded that no discretion was left with the District Magistrate to exercise power as an appointing authority in respect of the petitioner's services, may be under contract employment and therefore, this Court is of the clear opinion that the entire exercise conducted by the District Magistrate at his end on the basis of inquiry report is a sham and cannot have any independent existence to cloth it with legality to make it sustainable in law. The Additional Chief Secretary having found the petitioner guilty, ought to have afforded him opportunity of hearing before recording a final order that his services are to be dispensed with. Such an exercise of power is quite foreign to the

¶21

concept that “justice not only be done but must seem to have been done” and therefore, this Court is of the clear opinion that the petitioner's services based on an inquiry report holding him guilty of the charges has been dispensed with by way of punishment and therefore, the order is also quite stigmatic in nature and under such circumstances, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded qua the proposed action by the Additional Chief Secretary and having not done so he is in clear error of his authority and the order cannot be sustained on the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution as well as principles of natural justice.

¶22

In view of the above, the order passed by Additional Chief Secretary dated 07.08.2020 as well as of the District Magistrate dated 25/26.08.2020 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the State Government to take a decision afresh in the matter giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the inquiry report.

¶23

Writ petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of above observations and directions.

¶24

Order Date :- 16.12.2020 IrfanUddin

Bharat Lal v. State of U P and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Lal v. State of U P and 10 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

Suman Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lakh Patti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ranjeet Singh Vs Board of Revenue and 17 Others

Shiv Param Lal Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Jai Prakash Singh Vs Board of Revenue and 2 Others

Bachcha Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others