Allowed

Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secy P.W.D. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023WRIA/24711/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held defective disciplinary proceedings regarding an inspector were vitiated by failure to inform reasons for disagreeing with an exoneration and lack of independent technical analysis, quashing both the Tribunal order and punishment.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Tribunal and punishment order dated 02.08.2019 are quashed. Liberty granted to disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order afresh within three months.

Kaptan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

[1]

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24711 of 2021 Petitioner :- Kaptan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secy P.W.D. And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Kumar Yadav,Amit Kumar,Satendra Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shikhar Anand

¶4

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

¶5

(1) The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Kaptan Singh , assailing the judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Tribunal ’) in Claim Petition No. 1470 of 2019 : Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P., by which the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. The petitioner is also assailing the order of punishment dated 02.08.2019, awarding censure entry as well as withholding one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect.

¶6

(2) Heard Shri Birendra Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anand Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2/the Tribunal and perused the impugned judgment as well as material brought on record.

¶7

(3) A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the claimant/ petitioner. A charge-sheet dated 22.07.2014 was served upon the claimant/respondent. Thereafter, the claimant/respondent

¶8

[2]

¶9

had filed his reply dated 03.09.2014 to the aforesaid chargesheet. In the enquiry report dated 15.07.2015, charges levelled against the claimant/petitioner was not found to be proved, but it appears that even then a show cause notice dated 16.01.2016 was issued to the claimant/respondent. The claimant/ respondent had submitted his reply dated 14.03.2016 in response to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 16.01.2016, however, yet no final order was passed in the disciplinary proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant/writ petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 15899 of 2019. By means of the order dated 30.05.2019 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, respondents were directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four weeks.

¶10

(4) It was further pointed by the claimant/petitioner before the Tribunal that when the enquiry officer had not found the claimant/petitioner guilty of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have been informed the reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, which was not done in the instant case.

¶11

(5) The Tribunal held that the technical inspection of the work done was carried out by Technical Audit Cell (TAC) only and the disciplinary authority did not get any technical inspection carried out during the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal categorically held that when the matter related to technical

¶12

[3]

¶13

analysis, the disciplinary authority, which was the Chief Engineer and Senior Technical Officer, ought to have been carried out the inspection himself for ascertaining the technical analysis. However, even after the Tribunal rejected the claim petition, holding that the show cause notice was issued to the claimant/petitioner and punishment order was passed after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the claimant/petitioner.

¶14

(6) Assailing the order aforesaid passed by the Tribunal, learned Counsel for the claimant/petitioner has submitted that as the enquiry officer had exonerated the claimant/petitioner of the charges levelled against him, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to have indicated the reasons for his disagreement with the enquiry report, which has not been done in the present case and, thereafter, the disciplinary authority is required to give another show cause notice, giving opportunity to the employee concerned to show cause against the proposed punishment. However, in the present case, only show cause notice against the proposed punishment was issued without informing the reasons for disagreement of the disciplinary authority with the finding of the enquiry officer.

¶15

(7) On due consideration, we are of the view that the aforesaid defect in the enquiry goes root of the matter and vitiates the proceedings.

¶16

[4]

¶17

(8) When the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the enquiry officer did not conduct the technical analysis, whereas it was conducted by Senior Technical Officer, he ought to have himself made a technical analysis of the works carried by the claimant/petitioner, the punishment imposed upon the claimant/ petitioner without any technical analysis having been conducted stands vitiated, more particularly when the claimant/petitioner had already been exonerated by the enquiry officer.

¶18

(9) In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is allowed . The order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Tribunal as well as punishment order dated 02.08.2019 are hereby quashed.

¶19

(10) As the punishment order has been quashed keeping in view the defect in enquiry report, liberty is granted to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order afresh, after communicating his reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report and giving opportunity to the claimant/petitioner to defend himself, in accordance with law. The entire exercise will be concluded within a period of three months from today.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Ajit/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AJIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secy P.W.D. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secy P.W.D. and Anr.

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

Surendra Singh Vs Satyendra Singh and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another Vs Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Another Vs Surendra Pratap Singh

Kanti Devi and Another Vs State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Reeta Devi Vs Sri Rajendra Kumar

Sharad Verma Vs Ritu Katiyar