Om Prakash Prasad Vs Cane Commissioner U.P. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66251

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8244 of 2024

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Prasad Respondent :- Cane Commissioner U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Srivastava,Jaideep Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 22.05.2024 whereby disciplinary enquiry has been directed to be initiated against petitioner.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier as well, show cause notice was issued to petitioner dated 18.04.2022 on the same charges which was replied to on 17.05.2022 but without completion of aforesaid proceedings, a charge sheet has thereafter been issued to petitioner in pursuance of impugned order and therefore submits that fresh enquiry proceedings cannot be initiated against petitioner until and unless reply submitted by petitioner to earlier show cause notice is decided.

¶9

It is also submitted that impugned order has been passed by the Cane Commissioner U.P. who is the same person who was a member of Enquiry Committee which submitted a report dated 26.07.2021 and therefore it amounts to a person being Judge of his own cause.

¶10

Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that undisputedly the Cane Commissioner U.P. is the disciplinary authority of petitioner and is fully authorized to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. It is submitted that

¶11

the earlier alleged enquiry proceedings were only in the nature of a preliminary enquiry whereafter the impugned order has been passed and therefore does not amount to a second enquiry.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that although a show cause notice had earlier been provided to petitioner and reply to same was also submitted by him, but the same did not culminate in passing of any order. As such, it cannot be said that the present initiation of enquiry proceedings vide impugned order amounts to a second enquiry. There is no right vested in an employee for a direction to concerned authority to decide the earlier show cause notice and reply submitted by petitioner particularly when the present proceedings have been initiated by issuance of a charge sheet and not by a show cause notice.

¶13

It is also admitted that the Cane Commissioner U.P. is the disciplinary authority of petitioner. Therefore also it cannot be said that impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction or that the said person is a Judge of his own cause, since he has merely directed initiation of enquiry.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner admits that a charge sheet in pursuance of impugned order dated 22.05.2024 has been served upon petitioner but reply thereto has not yet been submitted since documents indicated in support of charges in the charge sheet have not yet been provided to petitioner.

¶15

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, opposite parties are directed to provide the documents indicated in the charge sheet dated 03.06.2024 to petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today. Upon receipt of aforesaid documents, petitioner shall be granted a time period of fifteen days for submitting reply to same. Enquiry proceedings shall be

¶16

concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the last date petitioner is required to submit reply to charge sheet. Aforesaid time-frame shall be subject to cooperation by petitioner in early conclusion of enquiry proceedings.

¶17

With aforesaid directions, the petition is finally disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 kvg/-

¶19

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

Om Prakash Prasad v. Cane Commissioner U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Prasad v. Cane Commissioner U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Nandan Shah Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Nidhi Srivastava Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Women and Child Development , New Delhi and 5 Others

Dinesh Chandra Sharma Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry O Communication and 2 Others

Smt. Sonal Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Deptt. Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Ved Prakash Sharma and 19 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Seema vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home , Lko. and 4 Others