Allowed

Ram Ji Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Chini Udyog Evam Ganna Vikas and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024/232/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition quashing orders withholding annual increments and dismissing the appeal. Relying on Kamta Prasad Shukla and Kulwant Singh Gill, the Court held the penalty was major and required inquiry, which was absent, and proceedings could not continue after superannuation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 08.02.2017 and 17.08.2023 were quashed with consequential benefits.

Ram Ji Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12993

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 232 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Ji Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Chini Udyog Evam Ganna Vikas And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 08.02.2017 and 17.08.2023 whereby punishment of withholding of an annual increment with cumulative effect has been passed against petitioner with appeal their against being rejected.

¶8

Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no.2 and 3 is taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that although the impugned order has been passed regarding withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect and is indicated in Regulation 50(1)(b) of the U.P. Sahakari Chini Mill Sangh Limited Employee Service Regulations, 1988 as a minor penalty but its impact has been considered in judgment and order dated 13.12.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No.9311 of 2023; Kamta Prasad Shukla versus State of U.P. & Ors. alongwith connected matter and it has been held that in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill versus State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supplementary (1) SCC 504 that even such a penalty although indicated to be minor in nature would in fact amount to a major penalty whereby the entire procedure as required for imposition of major penalty is required is to be followed.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite parties however on the basis of counter affidavit submits that since the punishment imposed is minor in nature as per Service Regulations, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have followed the full inquiry procedure.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that punishment of withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect has been passed against petitioner which is indicated as Regulation 50(1)(b) and has been considered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Prasad Shukla (supra) in the following manner:-

¶12

"4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 08.02.2017, whereby an order of punishment was passed against the petitioner withholding two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2023.

¶13

8. In view of the law as propounded by the Supreme Court, it is clear that punishment accorded to the petitioner is in fact a major punishment traceable to Regulation 50(1)(d) of the Regulation and is inflicted without holding any disciplinary proceedings. Even otherwise, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that it was a minor punishment, nonaffording an opportunity of hearing clearly renders the order dated 08.02.2017 being in violation of principles of natural justice and thus bad in law. The appellate order clearly does not consider any of these aspects and as such cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. In fact, against the similar order, an appeal preferred by the persons similarly situated was allowed by the appellate authority itself through its judgment dated 26.05.2018 communicated through documents contained in Annexure No. 13."

¶14

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is quite evident that the aforesaid punishment of imposition of withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect has already been held to amount to a major penalty whereby requiring a full-fledged inquiry. Such a procedure having not been adopted by opposite parties render the impugned order vitiated.

¶15

It has also been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been specifically averred that petitioner superannuated from service on 31.08.2020. The aforesaid averment has not been denied by opposite parties. It is quite evident and admitted that there is no provision for continuation of inquiry proceedings against employee of the Federation post superannuation. This is a fact already addressed in paragraph 10 of the judgment which is as follows:

¶16

"10. The counsel for the respondent states that the respondent may be permitted to continue the proceedings against the petitioner. However, the said submission merits rejection for the reason that the petitioner had admittedly retired on 31.12.2020 and prior to the passing of the order dated 08.02.2017, no charge sheet was issued against the petitioner, as such, permitting the respondent to initiate and continue proceedings at

¶17

present after retirement would be causing adverse consequences on the petitioner, which cannot be permitted after seven years."

¶18

In view of aforesaid, there is no occasion to remit this case to the opposite parties for continuance of inquiry proceedings after superannuation since there is no specific provision for the same.

¶19

Considering aforesaid facts, the impugned orders dated 08.02.2017 and 17.08.2023 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari with consequential benefits.

¶20

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶21

Order Date : - 13.2.2024 Subodh/-

¶22

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

Ram Ji Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Chini Udyog Evam Ganna Vikas and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ji Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Chini Udyog Evam Ganna Vikas 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudeep Kumar Singh S/O Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thro. the Secy. of Basic Education and 4 Ors.

C/M, K.P. Singh Shiksha Sansthan Junior High School, Gonda Thru. Mgr. Alakh Ram Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Basic Education, Lucknow and Others

Jogendra and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lucknow and 3 Others

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Developement Lko. and 3 Others

Shashank Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Energy Lko. and 2 Others