Dismissed

Shiv Narayan Gupta v. Sri Uma Shankar Prasad and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024/178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Appeal challenges a Single Judge's order directing discipline against an Enquiry Officer for violating Rule 7 of the U.P. Govt. Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, by failing to fix date, time, or place for an oral inquiry. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's order, dismissing the appeal as entirely without substance.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with a direction that the Single Judge's order directing appropriate steps be implemented.

Shiv Narayan Gupta Vs Sri Uma Shankar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56767-DB

¶3

Chief Justice's Court

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 178 of 2024

¶5

Appellant :- Shiv Narayan Gupta Respondent :- Sri Uma Shankar Prasad And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Dharm Raj Mishra, Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Shri I.M. Pandey Ist, Advocate, and Shri V.P. Nag, Standing Counsel

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WRIT-A No.4891 of 2024 whereby while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents, directions have been given to take appropriate steps against the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Officer as per law.

¶8

The writ petition was filed by the respondents aggrieved of the enquiry report as well as the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶9

Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, came to the following conclusion:-

¶10

"9. This is really a sorry state of affairs that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has punished the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 7.3.2024 (Annexure-1) without supplying the copy of the inquiry report and the copy thereof has been supplied to the petitioner on 30.5.2024, therefore, the aforesaid fact makes it crystal clear that the disciplinary authority i.e., Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki is not aware about the settled position of law. Even the disciplinary authority did not verify the relevant aspect of the departmental inquiry as to whether the Inquiry Officer had fixed date, time and place for conducting the oral inquiry inasmuch as it is neither clear from the inquiry report nor from the instructions letter so produced today, therefore, the impugned

¶11

¶12

punishment order vitiates on both the courts, i.e., at the stage of inquiry and at the time of seeking explanation from the petitioner by the disciplinary authority on the basis of inquiry report which has admittedly been not supplied to the petitioner before imposing major punishment."

¶13

In view of the fact that repeated directions were issued by this Court, requiring the authorities to follow the U.P. Government Servants (Disciple and Appeal) Rules of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1999') and on account of gross violation, further directions were given that a copy of the order be provided to the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. to take appropriate steps against the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Officer of the present case as per law so that other officers could know that if they do not follow the settled proposition of law while conducting the departmental inquiry or contemplating imposing major punishment, consequences will follow.

¶14

The appellant, the Enquiry Officer, aggrieved of the portion of the direction wherein appropriate steps have been ordered to be taken against the appellant has filed the present appeal.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the learned Single Judge made observations essentially against the Disciplinary Authority on account of failure to supply copy of the Enquiry Report before imposing the punishment and only passing references have been made pertaining to holding of the enquiry and in the operative portion of the order impugned, directions have been given to proceed against the appellant, the Enquiry Officer, as well and, therefore, the order to that extent deserves to be set aside.

¶16

Submissions have been made that only on account of misreading of

¶17

¶18

the provisions of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999, the mistake occurred in holding the Enquiry and, therefore, the directions given are harsh and deserves to be set aside.

¶19

Reliance was placed on Special Appeal Defective No.896 of 2023 (State of U.P. and others v. Dhirendra Sahai), decided on 22.11.2023 .

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the entire enquiry proceedings have been conducted in violation of provisions of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999, which aspect is writ large on record wherein no oral hearing was held by the Enquiry Officer and the learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in passing the order impugned.

¶21

Submissions were made that the order relied on by the appellant, is an order based on concession on behalf of the respondents therein and, therefore, the same cannot be relied on.

¶22

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record.

¶23

The learned Single Judge, after noticing the repeated infraction of provisions of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 and the fact that in past also detailed instructions were issued for holding the enquires in accordance with the provisions of law and the Enquiry Officers and the and Disciplinary Authorities still persisted in committing the same mistakes, noticed the violation as quoted hereinbefore in the judgment and thereafter passed the order impugned.

¶24

The submissions made that the observations essentially are directed against the Disciplinary Authority and only passing reference has been made qua the appellant, cannot be accepted as learned Single Judge has

¶25

¶26

clearly observed that the Enquiry Officer has not fixed date, time and place for conducting the oral enquiry.

¶27

A perusal of the enquiry report, available on record, also indicates that no such procedure was adopted.

¶28

The submissions made that on account of wrong reading of the provisions of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999, the mistake occurred, in that case, the mistake has a consequence inasmuch as the respondent has been made to approach this Court by filing a writ petition.

¶29

So far as the reliance placed on the order in case of Dhirendra Sahai (supra) , is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents is correct that the said order has been passed based on concession made by the respondents and, therefore, the same has no precedent value. The learned Single Judge, as noticed hereinbefore, referred to order in Prakash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another, WRIT-A No.2555 of 2022, decided on 07.05.2022, wherein exhaustive instructions were issued, whereafter the Government also issued order dated 10.08.2022 in this regard. However, the appellant, and other officers have chosen not to follow the directions of Courts and that of the State despite specific instructions issued in this regard.

¶30

In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed .

¶31

Order Date :- 21.08.2024 Rakesh/-

¶32

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Narayan Gupta v. Sri Uma Shankar Prasad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Narayan Gupta v. Sri Uma Shankar Prasad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Prakash Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Rural Development, Lucknow and Others

C/M Intermediate Collage Para Hamidpur Thru. Manager Pratima Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary. Edu. Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Uttarakhand State Cooperative Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director and Others vs Ramesh Chandra and Others

Anant Singh vs Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra-Ii Thru. Its Chairman and 5 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Civil Secrtt. Lko and Others

Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief/Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare and 2 Others