Allowed

Sunil Kumar Sareen v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Its Housing Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024/5636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This brief order quashes an appellate authority's order dismissing a petition against a major penalty. Finding the order was non-speaking without application of mind, the court remitters the matter to the Housing Commissioner to consider the appeal afresh within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate order dated 06.05.2024 is quashed; matter remitted to Housing Commissioner to consider appeal afresh within six weeks.

Sunil Kumar Sareen Vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49933

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5636 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Sareen Respondent :- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Its Housing Commissioner Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain,Rajendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Sampurna Nand Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sampurna Nand Shukla, learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 06.05.2024 whereby petitioner's Appeal against punishment order dated 29.09.2023 has been rejected. Also under challenge is the punishment order dated 29.09.2023 and the revised Office Order dated 28.02.2024.

¶8

It has been submitted that earlier enquiry proceedings had been initiated against petitioner which culminated in passing of punishment order dated 29.09.2023 whereby major penalty of reversion to the lowest pay-scale was imposed upon petitioner along with adverse entry and recovery.

¶9

Aforesaid punishment order dated 29.09.2023 was thereafter challenged before appellate authority which has rejected the same by a cursory order dated 06.05.2024 .

¶10

It is submitted that a bare perusal of appellate order will make it evident that the same has been passed without any application of mind and without adverting to grounds taken by petitioner in memorandum of Appeal. It is therefore submitted that there is absolutely no consideration indicated in impugned order passed by appellate authority.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties has sought to

¶12

defend the impugned orders with regard to imposition of punishment.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order dated 06.05.2024, it is evident that the order impugned is virtually a non-speaking order without adverting to any of the grounds taken by petitioner in memorandum of Appeal. The order ex facie is non-speaking and has been passed without any application of mind.

¶14

Impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by appellate authority is therefore quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari and the matter is remitted to the Housing Commissioner to consider petitioner's Appeal afresh against punishment order dated 29.09.2023.

¶15

Appellate authority is directed to consider and decide petitioner's Appeal within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned. He may also take cognizance of any Application for Interim Relief which has been filed by petitioner/appellant

¶16

Consequently, the petition succeeds and is partly allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.7.2024 kvg/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Kumar Sareen v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Its Housing Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Sareen v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Its Housing Commissioner Lko. and 2 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

Anil Kumar Pandey Objection Filed as Per Roster Vs State of U.P.Thru Secretary Sanskrit Siksha Parishad and 3 Ors.

Braj Raj Singh Vs Ragistrar Cooperative Societies U.P. Lko and 2 Ors.

Shiv Kumar Vs Assistant Director of Education Basic Lucknow and 2 Ors.

C/M Malti Devi Girls Junior High School Thru. Manager Sri Umesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education and 3 Others

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt., Lko. and Others

Rahul Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others