Quashed

km. Mahima Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020WRIA/2370/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the termination order dated 23.12.2019 passed against the petitioners by the S.S.P., Varanasi, holding it illegal for proceeding without a show cause notice or opportunity to explain, remitting the matter to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination order quashed; respondents directed to issue proper show cause notice to petitioners before further proceedings.

km. Mahima Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2370 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Km. Mahima Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Poojan Yadav,Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.),Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 23.12.2019 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated.

¶7

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.2.2020 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.204 of 2020 (Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr.) and as such similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition also. For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment dated 3.2.2020 is quoted as under:-

¶8

".............In pursuance of order dated 23.1.2020, learned Standing Counsel has obtained further instructions from the respondents. From the instructions received by learned Standing Counsel, he is unable to demonstrate that any show cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner. He also fairly admits that copy of the complaint was also never served upon the petitioner, nor at any point of time, his explanation was called for in respect of the allegations levelled against him by the complainant, a private person. The instructions furnished to learned Standing Counsel also reveals that the alleged enquiry by Assistant Commandant and in pursuance whereof two enquiry reports had been submitted, was in the nature of a preliminary enquiry. A recital to the said effect is contained on the first page of the enquiry report.

¶9

No doubt, it seems that while conducting preliminary enquiry, the petitioner's statement was also recorded, but the impugned order does not at all refer to the stand taken by the petitioner, nor even make any reference to his statement.

¶10

A preliminary enquiry is held to find out if there is any prima facie material to proceed on basis of the imputations and also to find out the person against whom regular enquiry, if required, is to be held. Consequently, on basis of the enquiry held by the Assistant Commandant, all that could be concluded is that the respondents came in possession of prima facie evidence to proceed against the petitioner. In that event, it should be followed by a proper show cause notice, seeking his explanation, with full opportunity to him to lead evidence in support of his defence and whereafter, the authorities were free to take appropriate decision in the matter. However, in the instant cases, after receipt of report of preliminary enquiry, the second respondent had straightaway proceeded to pass the impugned order.

¶11

The decision making process in the instant case is thus wholly illegal and arbitrary. It is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also principles of natural justice and consequently, the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The respondents are at liberty to issue proper show cause notice to the petitioner regarding the charges and thereafter proceed in the matter, consistent with the

¶12

principles of natural justice.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."

¶14

So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same has not been disputed by learned Standing Counsel.

¶15

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the contention raised by learned Standing Counsel.

¶16

Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The respondents are at liberty to issue proper show cause notice to the petitioners regarding the charges and thereafter proceed in the matter, consistent with the principles of natural justice.

¶17

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.7.2020 SP/

km. Mahima Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

km. Mahima Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishan Dutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vikas Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalita Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others