Anurag Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Work Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Anurag Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Work Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 07.02.2023 quashed by writ of Certiorari; liberty to opposite parties to pass fresh orders by re-initiating enquiry from the stage after submission of reply to the charge sheet, to be concluded within four months subject to petitioner's cooperation; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the punishment order dated 07.02.2023 is vitiated because the disciplinary enquiry was not conducted in accordance with paragraph 709 of the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Manual — no oral enquiry was held and no opportunity was afforded to cross-examine witnesses or substantiate documentary evidence. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order does not indicate that any oral enquiry was held in the matter to substantiate the charges by oral or documentary evidence.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's grievance that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied does not appear to have been controverted by the opposite parties.

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 07.02.2023 is quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.ratio¶¶14
Liberty is granted to the opposite parties to pass fresh orders by re-initiating enquiry proceedings from the stage after submission of reply by the petitioner to the charge sheet.ratio¶¶14
The fresh proceedings shall be concluded within four months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the authority concerned, subject to cooperation by the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Manish Mathur, J.), WRIT - A No. 675 of 2024, decided 11.3.2024 (Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:21169): Disciplinary punishment of recovery from salary and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect imposed by order dated 07.02.2023 in proceedings governed by paragraph 709 of the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Manual was quashed in a writ of certiorari. The Court found that the petitioner's grievance that a copy of the enquiry report was never supplied stood uncontroverted despite his letter dated 01.02.2023, and that the impugned order did not indicate any oral enquiry having been held to substantiate the charges by oral or documentary evidence. Liberty was granted to pass fresh orders by re-initiating the enquiry from the stage after submission of the reply to the charge sheet, such proceedings to conclude within four months of production of a certified copy, subject to the petitioner's cooperation. Petition allowed; no order as to costs.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21169

Court No. - 17

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 675 of 2024

Petitioner :- Anurag Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Work Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard Mr. Avinash Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Shishir Jain, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 4.

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 07.02.2023 whereby petitioner has been visited with the punishment of recovery from his salary and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

It has been submitted that paragraph 709 of the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Manual for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings against employees of the Corporation specifically provides the procedure in accordance with which disciplinary proceedings are required to be conducted. It is submitted that there is clear violation of the aforesaid rules inasmuch as no proper enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the rules applicable upon petitioner. It is submitted that no oral enquiry was held affording any opportunity to petitioner to crossexamine any witness or any proceedings to substantiate documentary evidence against petitioner. It is also submitted that even a copy of enquiry report was not supplied to petitioner.

Learned counsel for opposite parties has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that ample opportunity of hearing was provided to

petitioner during enquiry proceedings and a show cause notice was also issued to him after submission of enquiry report. It is however submitted that petitioner submitted a letter dated 01.02.2023 indicating and raising grievance that a copy of the enquiry report has not been supplied to him but the same has neither been controverted by the Corporation nor such a copy was ever supplied to him.

In view of aforesaid submissions and consideration of material on record, particularly the impugned order, the aforesaid grievance as indicated by petitioner does not appear to have been controverted. The impugned order also does not indicate any oral enquiry having been held in the matter to substantiate charges by oral or documentary evidence.

In view of aforesaid discussions, impugned order dated 07.02.2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass fresh orders against petitioner by re-initiating enquiry proceedings from the stage after submission of reply by petitioner to the charge sheet.

Aforesaid proceedings shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. Such time-frame shall be subject to cooperation by petitioner in the enquiry proceedings.

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 11.3.2024 kvg/-

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