Allowed

Mrityunjai Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami Gange Evam Gramin Jalapurti ANUBHAG-4 and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jun 2022/3768/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a government servant's representation without a final order on his inquiry report. The court held that Rule 9(4) requires a reasoned composite order considering all records, quashing the premature rejection and directing a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 31.05.2022 disposing of the representation. Directed opposite party to pass a fresh order considering all records and the inquiry report after giving the petitioner a fresh opp

Mrityunjai Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3768 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mrityunjai Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami Gange Evam Gramin Jalapurti Anubhag-4 And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Sharma, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶7

Keeping in view the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to opposite party no. 3.

¶8

The petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department (Namami Gange Department) of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. While working on the aforesaid post a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which culminated into an inquiry report dated 09.02.2022, which was served upon the petitioner along a letter dated 03.01.2022 issued by the government along with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to the government regarding the findings of the inquiry report, in which two out of four charges leveled against the petitioner had been found to have been proved.

¶9

On 13.05.2022, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation in response to the aforesaid letter dated 03.01.2022. On 31.05.2022, the opposite party no. 1 has passed an order rejecting the petitioner's representation, however, no final order has been passed on the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer.

¶10

Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 9 (4) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which provides as follows:-

¶11

"(4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant."

¶12

His submission is that the aforesaid Rule requires that the disciplinary authority is obliged to pass an order having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government Servant by passing a reasoned order. By means of the order dated 02.06.2022 the petitioner's representation has been rejected without having regard to all the records relating to the inquiry and passing a final order in this regard. The disciplinary authority has adopted a procedure which is not known to the law and the decision taken by adopting such a course cannot be allowed to sustain.

¶13

As per the provisions contained in Rule 9 (4) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, the disciplinary authority is required to pass a fresh composite order keeping into consideration the entire relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the petitioner and the representation could not be disposed of in a piece-meal manner, without looking into the other relevant records.

¶14

Sri Alok Sharma, the learned Additional Chief Standing

¶15

Counsel has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner but he could not dispute the provision contained in Rule 9 (4) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

¶16

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the relevant provision of Rule 9 (4) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, the instant writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the opposite party no. 2 disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 13.05.2022, which order has been communicated to the petitioner through the letter dated 02.06.2022 sent by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow, is hereby quashed.

¶17

The opposite party no. 2 is directed to proceed to pass a fresh order keeping in view the provisions of Rule 9 (4) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 after having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and the representation of the petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner will be given an opportunity to submit a fresh representation raising all the pleas available to him.

¶19

However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.6.2022 Aditya

¶21

Digitally signed by ADITYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.06.09 20:52:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mrityunjai Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami Gange Evam Gramin Jalapurti ANUBHAG-4 and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrityunjai Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami Gange Evam Gramin Jalapurti ANUBHAG-4 and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dileep Kumar Vs U.P. State Electricity Board Lko. Thru. Its Chairman Shankti Bhawan Lko. and 3 Others

Prithvi Raj @ Pirthi Raj Vs Jai Singh and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. through Adiitional Chief Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag and Others

Smt. Neelam Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Const. No. 927040082 Shailendra Pratap Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Others

Shiv Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Co-Operative Lko. and 2 Others