Allowed

Chandra Bhan Singh v. Lucknow Development Authority

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023WRIA/965/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging suspension and penalty order (reversion to lower pay scale, adverse entry). High Court held inquiry vitiated due to absence of charge sheet as per its order, quashing impugned orders and directing consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 09.02.2000 and 27.06.2000 quashed; consequential benefits directed within six weeks.

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs Lucknow Development Authority — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42367

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 965 of 2000

¶4

Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Singh Respondent :- Lucknow Development Authority Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C.Singh,Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Umesh Chandra,Abhishik K Pandey,K.Chandra,Sri Ratnesh Chandra,Vikas Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent(s) - LDA.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.02.2000 placing the petitioner under suspension and order dated 27.06.2000 inflicting penalty of reverting him to the lowest stage in pay scale and award of adverse entry.

¶8

The petitioner was appointed temporarily as a Reference Clerk at Rs.50/- per month in the scale of Rs.50-2-60-EB-4-100 plus usual D.A. in Vikas Vibhag, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow vide order dated 03.09.1963 and in pursuance thereof, he joined his post on 03.09.1963 and since then he is serving continuously.

¶9

Upon enactment of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, LDA was established and the staff of Vikas Vibhag, Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika including the petitioner stood transferred to the LDA and has been subsequently absorbed in the services of LDA and the designation of the petitioner was changed from Reference Clerk to Second Grade Clerk and thereafter, to the post of Lower Division Assistant.

¶10

The petitioner is continuously working since 03.09.1963 but has not been promoted to the next higher post i.e. First Grade Clerk (UDA) as per his seniority, however, persons junior to him have been promoted to the said post. A person, namely, Sri R.K Mishra, whose promotion was also withheld along with the petitioner, got promoted along with 12 other persons on 10.02.1984 and the petitioner got promoted on 12.05.1988. Sri R.K. Mishra was given the seniority in the grade of U.D.A. w.e.f. 14.04.1981 in the seniority list issued on 13.11.1998, however, the petitioner was assigned the seniority in the grade

¶11

of U.D.A. w.e.f 12.05.1988.

¶12

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.629 (S/S) of 1999 before this Court on 20.02.1999 to determine his seniority on the same principles on which the seniority of Sri R.K. Mishra, LDA was determined and to consider his case for promotion to the post of Section Officer and the writ petition is still pending.

¶13

On 15.04.1999, wife of the petitioner suffer from brain hemorrhage due to which left side of her whole body was paralysed, therefore, the petitioner was not able to attend the office. On 03.10.1999, while election duty, the petitioner fallen down from truck and had to stand in drizzling weather while depositing the election material in District Election Officer, Lucknow and fallen ill. On 26.11.1999, the petitioner had severe pain in his back and headache due to which he left for his home after informing the office.

¶14

When petitioner was not able to attend the office, he submitted application for leave along with keys of office almirah. During his sickness, lock of office almirah was broken and records and files have been disturbed and dak register, 3-4 back drafts and other documents were taken off. When petitioner made communication in this regard, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 09.02.2000 on the allegation of non availability of files and records and on non-compliance of transfer order dated 02.11.1999, which was never served upon the petitioner. Subsequently, order dated 27.06.2000 was passed by respondent No.2, whereby penalty of reverting him to lowest stage in pay scale and an adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶15

In paragraphs 21 & 27-B of the amended writ petition, statement of fact has been made that no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner and no date, time, place was fixed while conducting the inquiry against the petitioner.

¶16

This Court vide order dated 28.04.2023, issued following direction:

¶17

"On the request of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent, list on 5.5.2023 peremptorily to enable him to file the charge sheet, if any, issued to the petitioner."

¶18

Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents was granted time to produce the charge sheet and despite of his best efforts, he could not get copy of the charge sheet and made statement that he is not able to file the charge sheet, as alleged, in compliance of order of this Court.

¶19

In view of aforesaid, in case no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner, the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner stands vitiated in law on this ground alone.

¶20

On the basis of ex-parte inquiry report, the punishment was awarded to the petitioner reverting him back on lower pay scale and adverse entry was also recorded in his service book.

¶21

In view of reasons recorded above, the impugned orders dated 09.02.2000 & 27.06.2000 are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed.

¶22

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 09.02.2000 & 27.06.2000 are hereby quashed.

¶23

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed .

¶24

The respondents are directed to provide all the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date production of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

No order as to costs.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Adarsh K Singh

¶27

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

Chandra Bhan Singh v. Lucknow Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhan Singh v. Lucknow Development Authority

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

Atar Singh S/O Ghasi Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Rural Dev. and Anr.

Ajay Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Gramin Vikas and 4 Ors.

Dr. Arvind Jain Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy. to Govt. of U.P. Medi-

Dr.Kashi Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P.through Secretary Medical Education and 2 Ors.

Ram Swarup Singh Vs Food Corporation of India through Zonal Manager and 2 Ors.

Indian Telephone Industries I.T.I. Vidaya Madnir Samiti Vs Committee of Management I.T.I.Rae Bareli Thorugh President