Allowed

Rajiv Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Energy and Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024/670/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench allowed the writ petition challenging a penalty order imposing minor and major penalties simultaneously. The court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs S.C. Parashar.

What did the court decide?

Impugned penalty order dated 08.12.2021 set aside; matter remitted to competent authority to pass a fresh order within 6 weeks.

Rajiv Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. through its… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74351

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 670 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Energy And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Saran

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Sri Ashutosh Parmar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Alok Saran, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 6.

¶7

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

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 08.12.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been imposed three penalties namely (a) censure (b) recovery of an amount of Rs. 33,00,001/- and (c) reduction to the lowest stage in the pay scale.

¶9

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned punishment order is an amalgam of minor and major penalty which cannot be passed considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs S.C. Parashar : (2006) 3 SCC 167.

¶10

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties do not dispute the aforesaid position of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.C. Parashar (supra).

¶11

Accordingly, considering the aforesaid as a short controversy is involved in the matter the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.12.2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Let such an order be passed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The consequences of the order impugned being set aside would be dependent upon the order to be passed by the authority.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5 submits that the punishment order has already come into force and a recovery of Rs. 20,000/- per month is being made from the salary of the petitioner which fact is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

It is provided that the recovery made from the salary of the petitioner shall be subject to the order to be passed by the competent authority in pursuance to this order.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.11.2024

¶15

Pachhere/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajiv Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Energy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Energy and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Taruna Saxena Vs Union of India Thru. It Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications, and 2 Others

C/M Lala Ram Kumar Vidyalaya Patranga Thru. Minister Ajay Kumrey Tivari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Kshetrapal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Secondary Education), Lko. and Others

Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Agriculture Edu. and RESEARCHandORS

Dr. Ram Suman Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Education and Research and 4 Others