Allowed

Roli Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2024/3497/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a penalty order passed in violation of natural justice as she was not supplied with a crucial report relied upon by the authority. The Court quashed the order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision complying with due process within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.02.2024 quashed; matter remanded to competent authority to pass fresh order within eight weeks.

Roli Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37209

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3497 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Roli Dubey

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Rural Development Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya,Shobhit Mohan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶8

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.

¶9

3. Facts of the case have already been indicated vide order dated 08.05.2024. For convenience order dated 08.05.2024 is reproduced hereunder:-

¶10

"Heard.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of order impugned dated 21.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of recovery. The same has been occasioned after issuance of a show cause notice dated 26.05.2023, a copy of which is annexure 20 to the petition, to which the petitioner submitted her reply dated 03.07.2023 and 21.11.2023.

¶12

It is contended that instead of the competent authority passing an order on the basis of averments contained in the show cause notice and considering the reply of the petitioner a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that during pendency of the matter before the competent authority he had referred the matter vide the letter dated 30.11.2023 to the Deputy Commissioner (Labour Employment), MGNREGA for his examination and thereafter considering the report submitted by the said officer alongwith other materials the order impugned has been passed.

¶13

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there can be no doubt that the competent authority is always empowered to pass an order on the basis of averments in the cause cause notice and after considering the reply of the delinquent employee but in the instant case when the matter had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner for his comments and those comments have been considered while passing the order impugned without supplying the said comments / report to the petitioner, consequently the order impugned would be in gross violation of principles of natural justice and thus even if the

¶14

remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, as the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the instant writ petition would be maintainable keeping in view the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCC 1.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a weeks' time to seek instructions as to whether the report of the Deputy Commissioner as has been referred in the order impugned was ever supplied to the petitioner and if not as to why the same has been considered while passing the order impugned.

¶16

List this case in the next week as fresh."

¶17

4. From perusal of the order dated 08.05.2024, it emerges that the order impugned dated 21.02.2024 has been passed by the competent authority who had referred the matter vide letter dated 30.11.2023 to the Deputy Commissioner (Labour Employment) MGNREGA, Kheri for examination, and after considering the report submitted by the said officer along with the other material.

¶18

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at no stretch of time was the said report ever given to the petitioner and the order impugned having been passed after considering the said report has thus been passed in gross violation of principles of nature justice. 6. The Court had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter vide order dated 08.05.2024.

¶19

7. Today, Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions sent by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 14.05.2024, states that the said report had not been supplied to the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid statement as given by Sri Sandeep Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel of the report, as has been referred to in the impugned order, having not been supplied to the petitioner thus it is apparent that order impugned has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice without supplying the material, which has been relied upon, as emerges from the order impugned. Consequently the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.

¶21

The petition is allowed.

¶22

It is open for the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It is also provided that in case the report, as has been referred to in the impugned order, is to be relied upon then a copy of the same shall be supplied to the petitioner and after considering the reply of the petitioner, an order shall be passed in accordance with law by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Lucknow within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.5.2024

¶24

prateek

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Roli Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roli Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 6 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

Smt. Anari Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Rameshwar Prasad Maurya and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Cooperative Lko. and Others

Sanjeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture Food Processing Lko. and 2 Others

Ajmat Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shree Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

JC-706407-Y Prem Shankar Singh Yadav Vs the Union of India Rep by the Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Defence and 5 Others