Dismissed

Rang Nath Dubey v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2021WRIA/3879/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued post-superannuation, arguing it violated a Coordinate Bench's liberty granted for fresh orders. Court held notice was permissible prelude to order under reserved liberty and dismissed writ, reserving liberty to file reply before final decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to file reply within 15 days before final order is passed.

Rang Nath Dubey Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 35

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3879 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rang Nath Dubey Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Lok Nath Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Rajnish Kumar Rai

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondents.

¶5

This petition has been filed challenging show cause notice dated 19.02.2019, issued by Disciplinary Authority/Assistant Safety Commissioner, R.P.F., Allahabad to the petitioner in terms of the liberty reserved by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.11.2018 passed in Writ A No. 4590 of 2000 on the basis of a statement given by Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar Singh appearing for the respondents that nothing is available on record to show that any opportunity or show cause notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, it appears that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. High Court, however, in Para-8 observed that "However this order shall not preclude respondents from passing fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner." In terms of the opportunity afforded by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner.

¶6

Petitioner's contention is that on 25.05.1997, he was removed from service, thereafter, he had filed an appeal which was dismissed on 26.03.1998. Against this order, a revision was filed under the Departmental Scheme of proceedings, which was allowed vide order dated 12.10.1998. Thereafter, petition was again dismissed vide order dated 28.01.1999. Appeal against this order was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 26.11.1999, but thereafter, petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 4590 of 2000, in which, vide order dated 28.01.2000, interim orders were passed on the strength of which petitioner continued in service till his date of superannuation i.e., 30.06.2017. It is submitted that once petitioner superannuated, then no show cause notice could be issued to the petitioner, which is subject matter in this writ petition and which is the bone of contention for the petitioner.

¶7

However, petitioner is not in a position to dispute that in his own Writ Petition No. 4590 of 2000, liberty was extended in favour of the department to pass fresh orders in accordance with

¶8

law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶9

When learned counsel for the petitioner is asked as to whether any review has been sought seeking quashing of the order, as contained in Para-8, passed on 01.11.2018, he submits that no review has been sought and petitioner does not wish to seek any review as he has full regard for the order passed on 01.11.2018.

¶10

In view of such facts, when an order has been passed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court, granting liberty in favour of the respondents then merely on the technicalities that whether the proceedings, contained in Annexure-23, dated 19.02.2019, is a show cause notice or an order, inasmuch as, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi submits that liberty was only to pass an order and not a show cause notice, this Court is of the opinion that if a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner as a prelude of passing of an order, in terms of the order dated 01.11.2018, passed by this High Court, then petitioner is bound to furnish his reply and take all possible objections, as are permissible under Law and this show cause notice as a prelude to the order to be passed by the respondents for which petitioner's response has been solicited, cannot be termed to be in violation of the order dated 01.11.2018, calling for interference, at this stage.

¶11

Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed . However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner that a final order has yet not been passed in the proceedings then petitioner will be free to file reply within 15 days from today and the authorities of the respondents will be duty bound to take such reply into consideration before passing any order in terms of the liberty granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 01.11.2018.

¶12

At this stage, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi submits that petitioner is being subjected to recurring harassment and is not being allowed to enjoy his retiral benefits.

¶13

However, it is evident from the petition itself that there are grievous charges of causing sexual harassment to the victim and in the teeth of such grievous charges made on the petitioner that he physically molested a girl, when she had visited a barrack to give ironed cloths, then the proceedings drawn by the authorities, cannot be said to be in the nature of harassment to the petitioner.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.9.2021/Vikram/-

Rang Nath Dubey v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rang Nath Dubey v. Union of India and 3 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

Markandey Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kaluaa Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kumari Eveline Milton Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Laxmi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Sagar and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Sajal Khanna Vs State Bank of India through Its Chairman, Mumbai and 3 Others