Allowed

Sunjeet Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024/1555/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a resolution removing a Gram Rojgar Sevak from service after finding that a deliberate preponement of a meeting denied the petitioner the opportunity of hearing previously afforded by notice.

What did the court decide?

Resolution dated 04.10.2023 is quashed; opposite parties directed to issue show cause notice with 10 days' time for reconsideration in a meeting.

Sunjeet Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20324

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1555 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sunjeet Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Shekhar,Anant Chowdhri,Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi,Sudheer Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 to 6. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party no. 7 stands dispensed with.

¶6

On 28.02.2024, the following order had been passed:-

¶7

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 to 6.

¶8

2. Petition has been filed challenging the resolution dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Gram Panchayat concerned whereby petitioner working on the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak has been removed from service.

¶9

3. It has been submitted that earlier a notice dated 03.10.2023 had been issued to petitioner by the Gram Panchayat indicating a meeting to be held on 09.10.2023 in which petitioner was required to be present in order to give a clarification regarding allegations levelled against her. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid notice, the Gram Panchayat meeting was actually held five days prior on 04.10.2023 itself whereby the impugned resolution has been passed. It is submitted that neither any fresh notice regarding preponement of meeting was never provided to petitioner nor was her reply considered.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 to 6 is granted a week's time to obtain instructions in this matter.

¶11

5. List this case on 06.03.2024, as fresh."

¶12

In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, learned counsel for opposite parties have been provided written instructions, a copy of which is taken on record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the meeting held on 04.10.2023 was in fact only an administrative meeting for consideration of the agenda in which an opportunity of hearing was not required to be provided to petitioner. It is further submitted that since the resolution dated 04.10.2023 was required to be affirmed/approved only in the next meeting on 09.10.2023, a notice had been issued to petitioner to lay forth his submissions

¶13

regarding allegations levelled against him but despite such an opportunity having been granted, petitioner did not avail himself of the same. It is therefore submitted that there is no error in the resolution dated 04.10.2023.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner refuting submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the resolution dated 04.10.2023 itself is indicative that a final decision has been taken and approval was merely a formality and therefore no opportunity of hearing has been provided to petitioner.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the resolution dated 04.10.2023, it is quite evident that various allegations have been levelled against petitioner with regard to his dis-satisfactory service and conduct. The resolution also indicates a decision having been taken by the Gram Panchayat for terminating contractual services of petitioner. The aforesaid resolution does not indicate any opportunity of hearing having been provided to petitioner.

¶16

It is also evident and on record that a notice dated 03.10.2023 i.e prior to the resolution dated 04.10.2023 was issued to petitioner requiring him to be afforded an opportunity of hearing in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 09.10.2023 but prior thereto the impugned resolution dated 04.10.2023 has been passed.

¶17

In the considered opinion of this Court, once an opportunity had been provided to petitioner to the present in the meeting on 09.10.2023 to make his submissions, there was no occasion for the Gram Panchayat to have passed the resolution prior to that date on 04.10.2023 affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

¶18

In view of aforesaid, the resolution dated 04.10.2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to the opposite parties to consider the matter afresh and pass relevant orders but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. For the aforesaid purpose, the opposite parties are directed to issue show cause notice to petitioner granting at least ten days' time for petitioner to file a reply thereto which shall be considered in the meeting to be held on 03.04.2024.

¶19

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed .

¶20

Order Date :- 6.3.2024/Satish

¶21

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

Sunjeet Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunjeet Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. and 6 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Maya Vs Nagar Ayukt Municipal Commissioner Nagar Nigam Lko.and Anr.

Annapurna Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Energy and 5 Others

Ram Gopal Vs Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam Urban Lko. and 2 Others

Sonam Harijan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Secondary Education, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Smriti Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lucknow and 5 Others

Nisha Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Chairman, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Lko and 3 Others