The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired government employee challenging a disciplinary order. Instead of adjudicating on the merits, the Court directed the Managing Director of the Transport Department to decide the pending representation within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103912
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6346 of 2023
Petitioner :- Brahmanand Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Rai,Ashish Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suresh Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4.
At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Conductor on 01.07.1980, promoted as Junior Clerk on 12.02.2020 and Senior Clerk, on 04.02.2014 in the respondent Corporation and was superannuated on 31.01.2019 has approached this Court assailing the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by respondent no. 4, Assistant Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Mirzapur, whereby, in disciplinary proceedings initiated against the charges of misconduct committed by the petitioner taking a sympathetic view considering his past services, a punishment of withholding of one annual increment on permanent basis has been imposed upon the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the said order, he preferred a representation dated 24.08.2017, addressed to respondent no. 2, Managing Director, Transport Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, which is still pending consideration.
He further submits that purpose of filing this writ petition would be served if directions are issued to the respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders on the pending representation of the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that he has no objection to the aforesaid proposition.
Considering the submissions advanced, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same is accordingly, disposed of requiring the respondent No. 2, Managing Director, Transport Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow seized with the representation of
the petitioner dated 24.08.2017, to pass appropriate orders thereon, after considering all aspects of the matter, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order of this Court.
Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it shall be open for the respondent No. 2, Managing Director, Transport Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, to pass appropriate orders.
Order Date :- 12.5.2023 v.k.updh.
Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether directions should be issued to the Managing Director to pass orders on the pending disciplinary representation.
Brahmanand Mishra
State Of U.P.
UPSRTC
Transport Department, Government of U.P.
Ashutosh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
