Dismissed

State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy, Public Work Dep, Sect, Lko and Another v. Ravi Das

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2022WRIA/222/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's writ petition challenging a Tribunal order that set aside a government employee's punishment for failure to issue a show cause notice. The dismissal was due to an unexplained inordinate delay of over eight years. No substantive holding on the procedural violation was made.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition filed by the State challenging the Tribunal's order setting aside the punishment is dismissed in the interest of preventing delay.

State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy, Public… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 222 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy, Public Work Dep, Sect, Lko And Another Respondent :- Ravi Das Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Birendra Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri. V. P. Nag, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner State of U. P. and Sri. Birendra Kumar Yadav, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶6

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that while the respondent was working on the post of Executive Engineer in U. P. Public Works Department, a charge sheet dated 15-092007 was issued against him, which was duly replied by the respondent, denying the charges. On 30-06-2008, the Enquiry Officer – the Chief Engineer, Jhansi Region, U. P. P. W. D. submitted his report exonerating the respondent of the charges.

¶7

On 05-09-2008, the Government issued an Office Memorandum stating that the conclusions of the enquiry officer were not found to be correct and both the charges are proved against the respondent and directed the respondent to submit his representation on the points of disagreement with the enquiry report.

¶8

The respondent submitted his representation on 06-01-2009 and on 20-05-2009 he gave an application requesting the Secretary of the Department to take a final decision in the matter. When no final decision was taken in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, he filed Claim Petition No. 979 of 2009 in the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, which was decided on 0607-2009 directing the authorities to dispose off the pending enquiry within a period of 8 weeks. However, the enquiry was not completed in spite of the order dated 06-07-2009 and the respondent filed another Claim Petition No. 1564 of 2009. When the aforesaid claim petition was admitted, then on 19-112009 the punishment order was passed imposing the penalty of censure as well as the stoppage of one increment temporarily for one year upon the respondent.

¶9

The respondent challenged the validity of the aforesaid order dated 19-11-2009 by filing Claim Petition No. 1992 of 2009 under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, which petition was allowed by means of the impugned order

¶10

dated 25-09-2013.

¶11

The learned Tribunal has set aside the punishment order dated 19-11-2009 by relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lav Nigam v. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd., (2006) 9 SCC 440 that in case the disciplinary authority differs from the view taken by the inquiry officer, he is bound to give a notice setting out his tentative conclusions to the delinquent employee. It is only after hearing the employee that the disciplinary authority would at all arrive at a final finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served with a notice relating to the punishment proposed. The Tribunal held that before passing the punishment order, the Disciplinary Authority did not issue a notice to the respondent to show cause against the proposed punishment and the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority was not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.

¶12

By means of the present Writ Petition filed on 13-01-2022, the State has assailed the validity of the judgment and order dated 25-09-2013 passed by the U. P. State Public Services Tribunal.

¶13

In an attempt to explain the delay in filing the Writ Petition, it has been pleaded that there was a typographical error in the order dated 25-09-2013 passed by the Tribunal, due to which the date of the punishment order had been mentioned as “26-052009” in place of “19-11-2009” and this error was corrected by the Tribunal means of an order dated 05-11-2020. However, the petitioner - State of U. P. has neither pleaded the date of filing of the application for correction of the typographical error, nor has it annexed a copy of the application for correction of the order.

¶14

A mere typographical error in mentioning the date of the punishment order at one place in the judgment of the Tribunal passed way back on 25-09-2013, which was later on corrected on the application of the State, will not justify the conduct of the petitioner – the State of U.P., in approaching this Court by filing a Writ Petition challenging the order more than 8 years after passing of the order under challenge – more particularly when the petitioner - State of U. P. has neither pleaded the date of filing of the application for correction of the typographical error, nor has it annexed a copy of the application for correction of the order from which the date of filing of the application can be ascertained.

¶15

In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the well settled law that the power of the High Court to issue a writ under Article 226 of the

¶16

Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶17

In absence of sufficient cause having been shown for approaching this Court after a lapse of more than 8 years since passing of the impugned order dated 25-09-2013 passed by the Tribunal, more particularly when the age of the respondent as mentioned to be 54 years in the Claim Petition filed in the year 2009 and presently he is more than 67 years of age and has retired since long, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion to exercise the extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner – State of U.P. who is challenging the well-reasoned order of the Tribunal whereby the punishment order dated 1911-2009 was set aside on the ground that before passing the punishment order, the Disciplinary Authority did not issue a notice to the respondent to show cause against the proposed punishment and the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority was not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lav Nigam (Supra).

¶18

For the reasons mentioned above, this Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶19

No order as to costs.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.1.2022 Fahim/-

State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy, Public Work Dep, Sect, Lko and Another v. Ravi Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy, Public Work Dep, Sect, Lko and Another v. Ravi Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Nayan Verma Vs State of U.P through the Secre. and 4 Others

Rasiyawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko, 4 Other

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Up Thru.District Collector/Zilaadhikari and Others