Disposed

Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2020WRIA/7503/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed a full-fledged enquiry under relevant service rules to be held regarding allegations of forged documents submitted by the petitioner. Pending the enquiry, recovery proceedings and union status were stayed. The petitioner was directed to submit a certified copy of documents upon issuance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to hold a full-fledged enquiry; stay of recovery proceedings and determination of service status pending the enquiry.

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7503 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pavan Kumar Srivastava,Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri K.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶6

No notice is needed to be issued to respondent no. 5 at this stage qua reply is needed.

¶7

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd May, 2019 and the consequential recovery order dated 10th July, 2020 and the ground taken by the petitioner is that absolutely no detailed enquiry was held in the matter as contemplated in U.P. Basic Education Staff Service Rule, 1973 read with U.P. Government Servant (Discipline ad Appeal) Rule, 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon judgment of this Court in Writ A No. 19304 of 2019 dated 16.12.2019.

¶8

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that three member committee was constituted and submitted its report in which petitioner's document was found to be forged one. Show cause notice was issued to him for appearance before the Committee. It is argued that from the perusal of the record, marksheet of Shastri Examination of 2019 the petitioner appeaared to be not genuine one and on verification from the University it was also found that such roll number was never allotted to any student. In view thereof findings have come to be returned that marksheet submitted by the petitioner was not authentic and was never issued by the University.

¶9

Be that as it may since law contemplates full fledged enquiry into the matter by complying with enquiry rules and, therefore, respondents ought to have adopted the procedure prescribed for. However, it is equally true that if a person has produced his documents and on verification from the University, it was ascertained to be not true one as it is stated that such a roll number was never allotted by the University, the reinstatement of the petitioner at this stage in service will not be in the interest justice but for the purpose of compliance of mandatory provisions of law of full fledged enquiry.

¶10

In view of the above, it is hereby directed that the chargesheet in the matter will be given by the respondent

¶11

to the petitioner within period of four weeks from today. Reply thereof shall be submitted by the petitioner within further period of three weeks and duly constituted Enquiry Committee shall hold an enquiry within a further period of one month from the date of reply submitted by the petitioner.

¶12

In the meanwhile until the final enquiry report is obtained and after giving show cause notice for the same a decision is taken by respondents pursuant to the provisions of 1999 Enquiry Rules ( supra ), it is hereby provided that recovery proceedings pursuant to orders 3rd May, 2019 and 10th July, 2019 shall remain in abeyance and same shall abide by final decision to be taken as directed hereinabove and so also the status of service of the petitioner.

¶13

Copy available on the official website of the shall be taken to be genuine one. However, petitioner shall supply certified copy also to the competent authority as and when issued.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.9.2020 Sanjeev

Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar 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

Azhar Sultan Ahmad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Momin Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 5 Others

Shivmurat Bhimrav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Singh Vs Institute of Engineering and Technology Bundelkhand University Jhansi and 3 Others

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others