Disposed

Mohd. Irfan Khan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2020WRIA/6310/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as per incuriam, holding there was an alternative remedy. It remitted the matter to the appropriate revisional authority under UP Government Servant Rules, 1999, directing a stay on recovery and prescribing a timeline for the revision proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Remitted to revisional authority with stay on recovery; PW to file revision within one month; RA to decide within two months.

Mohd. Irfan Khan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6310 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Irfan Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By the impugned order of punishment dated 08.08.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, the recovery to the extent of Rs.2,06,613/- was ordered against the petitioner. The petitioner took the order of punishment in appeal which was rejected by the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the respondent No.3.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing a revision before the revisional authority.

¶7

Sri Mohd. Sarwar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in his usual fairness does not dispute the proposition of law. He recasts his relief and submits that he may be permitted to file a revision along with stay application within a period of one month. He, however, submits the respondents are pressing the recovery against him.

¶8

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court.

¶9

In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is remitted to the respondent No.1-Secretary, Khadya and Rasad Vibhag,

¶10

U.P. at Lucknow/ the revisional authority under Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

¶11

The petitioner shall file a revision within a period of one month along with stay application before the respondent No.1-Secretary, Khadya and Rasad Vibhag, U.P. at Lucknow/ the revisional authority.

¶12

A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.1-Secretary, Khadya and Rasad Vibhag, U.P. at Lucknow/ the revisional authority to execute the following directions:

¶13

I. Till the decision on the stay application, the recovery against the petitioner shall remain stayed.

¶14

II. The respondent No.1-Secretary, Khadya and Rasad Vibhag, U.P. at Lucknow/ the revisional authority shall decide the revision within a period of two months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad along with memo of revision. The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned and the 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.

¶15

III. In case the revision is filed in the stipulated period of one month, the respondent No.1-Secretary, Khadya

¶16

and Rasad Vibhag, U.P. at Lucknow/ the revisional authority shall decide the revision on merits without going into the issue of delay.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.10.2020 Ashish Tripathi

Mohd. Irfan Khan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Irfan Khan v. State of U.P. and 4 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

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

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

Ram Sewak Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chunkawan Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhramendra Kumar Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.