Disposed

Ram Daur Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024/6850/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ mandamus directing action against an employee based on a previous inquiry report. Court noted that a superior authority had quashed the punishment order without granting liberty to proceed afresh. Court disposed of the petition by placing the quashing order on record for appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

Let a copy of the quashing order dated 21.07.2023 be placed before the opposite party no. 2 for appropriate action. Writ petition disposed of.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54941-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6850 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Daur Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Edu. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel who appears on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶7

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayer:-

¶8

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to take action against the opposite party no. 6 in pursuance of report of Inquiry Committee on dated 25-08-2022 and immediately take action against the opposite party no. 6, in the interest of justice."

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a social worker. Some complaints were made against the opposite party no. 6, who works as Steno in the Office of the Principal of Government Medical College, Ambedkar Nagar. On which a three members inquiry committee was formed. The three member inquiry committee submitted its report on 25.8.2022 against the opposite party no. 6 and also recommended his transfer to some other place and initiation of disciplinary proceeding against him. No further action has been taken by the respondents against the opposite party no. 6 and therefore, this writ petition has been filed.

¶10

Learned Standing-counsel has produced before this Court the instructions sent by the Principal of Government Medical

¶11

College, Ambedkar Nagar wherein, it has been stated that after the three members inquiry committee submitted its report on 25.8.2022, the then Principal of Medical College, Ambedkar Nagar had passed the punishment order on 9.9.2022, which punishment order was challenged in a revision by Sri Atul Tripathi and the Director General, Medical Education and Training has interfered in the matter and has passed an order on 21.7.2023 quashing such punishment order on the ground of not following procedure as prescribed under the 'Discipline and Appeal Rules of 1999.'

¶12

We have gone through the enclosures sent alongwith the instructions and we find that the order dated 21.07.223 passed by the Director General, Medical Education and Training, U.P., Lucknow has simply quashed the punishment order on the ground of not following the procedure prescribed in law. No liberty has been given to the Principal of the Medical College concerned to proceed a fresh, in accordance with law, against the opposite party no.6.

¶13

Let a copy of this order be placed before the opposite party no. 2 by counsel appearing for the petitioner for the opposite party no. 2 to take appropriate action.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 Mayank

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Daur Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Daur Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Edu. Lko and 5 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

Ms.Priyanka Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Ors.

M/S Rausheena Udyog Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Shri Kamal Nath Jha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushhtahar Vibhag Lko. and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Govt. of U.P. Thru. Its Chairman and Others

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 10 Others

Susmita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. AND2 Others

Jokhu Alias Jokhuram Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 7 Others