Dismissed

Rafi Parvez Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023/1364/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged punishment orders and subsequent appellate orders by a Public Service Tribunal, arguing the disciplinary authority failed to consider his explanation. The High Court held the appellate authority had considered the explanation in detail, negating the ground for challenge, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it lacks merit.

Rafi Parvez Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1364 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Rafi Parvez Khan

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh,Anand Singh Pawar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shikhar Anand

¶5

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anand Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent no.4

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.01.2021, passed by Superintendent of Police, Shamli awarding the censure entry to the petitioner on the ground that the disciplinary authority has not taken into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 16.07.2021, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saharanpur and the judgment and order dated 02.02.2023, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid punishment order and the appellate order.

¶8

The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that the disciplinary authority did not take into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner.

¶9

Although, it is correct that the punishment order dated 07.01.2021 merely states that the disciplinary authority had perused and considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and all the other documents available on record and

¶10

had found the explanation to be not satisfactory and liable to be rejected, without mentioning anything which may make out a due consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a perusal of the appellate order indicates that the appellate authority had considered each and every explanation given by the petitioner, in detail, and he found the explanation to be unacceptable. After considering all the points raised by the petitioner in his explanation, the appellate authority came to a conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner were found to be established and there was no reason to interfere in the punishment order.

¶11

The powers of the appellate authority are co-extensive with that of the disciplinary authority and as the appellate authority has already considered, in detail, the explanation submitted by the petitioner, as such, the ground that the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the disciplinary authority has no force.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 13.2.2023 Ram.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rafi Parvez Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafi Parvez Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 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

Naresh Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Deve. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Another Vs Suresh Chandra Shukla

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Education and Skill Deve.Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another Vs Smt. Hemlata Mishra

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D.and Anr. Vs U.P. State Public Sevice Tribunal Thru. Registrar and Ors.

Ramhet Vs Sunita Devi and Another

Sayyed Mohd. Faizan Vs Hina Parveen