Partly allowed

Vishnu Pratap Chauhan v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2022WRIA/18455/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his suspension due to a discrepancy in dates of birth. The enquiry had been pending over six months, with the investigating authority submitting a report on the correct date in September 2021. The court directed the respondent to conclude the enquiry within six weeks, dismissing the objection that the order was interlocutory.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the District Commandant Home Guards to conclude the pending enquiry within six weeks from the date this order is produced before him.

Vishnu Pratap Chauhan Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18455 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Vishnu Pratap Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.K.Rao,Mukul Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mukul Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranav Ojha, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4 - District Commandant Home Guards, Kushinagar whereby the petitioner has been suspended from duty/parade in furtherance of a letter dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Divisional Commandant Home Guards, Kushinagar which makes a reference to an enquiry regarding different date of births having been mentioned in different documents submitted by the petitioner.

¶7

The enquiry is pending since 25.08.2021.

¶8

On 16.07.2021, the respondent no. 4 - District Commandant Home Guards, Kushinagar had issued a letter calling the petitioner along with his original educational certificates on 18.07.2021 for recording his statement and the petitioner has appeared in furtherance of the said letter and has submitted the requisite documents. On 18.09.2021, the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'DIOS') has written a letter to the Divisional Commandant Home Guards, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, stating that after inspection of the relevant records, it appears that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 18.07.1970.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after issuance of the aforesaid letter dated 18.09.2021 by the DIOS after examining the relevant records, there is no reason for the respondent no.4 for not concluding the enquiry pending against him.

¶10

Sri Pranav Ojha, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition on the ground that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order and the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶11

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts particularly, the fact that the enquiry is pending for the last more than six months and the DIOS has submitted a report regarding correct date of birth of the petitioner after examining the relevant original records way back on 18.09.2021, there is no reason for further delay in conclusion of the enquiry pending against the petitioner.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts, a direction is issued to the respondent no. 4 to conclude the enquiry pending against the petitioner in furtherance of the letter dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Divisional Commandant Home Guards, Kushinagar and the communication dated 25.08.2021 issued by the District Commandant Home Guards, Kushinagar to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.3.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶15

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.03.04 15:04:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishnu Pratap Chauhan v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Pratap Chauhan 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

Anubhav Verma Vs Principal Judge Family Court Faizabad and Ors.

Durgesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs the Uttar Pradesh Punlic Service Commission and Another

Imran Ali Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Munnoo Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others