Dismissed

Cane Commissioner U.P.Lucknow and 3 Ors. v. Dhani Ram Verma

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2024SPLA/246/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sibal special appeal by Cane Commissioner against Single Judge orders reviewing a dismissal case. Court held that since appellants failed to avail the liberty to pursue fresh proceedings in the review, they cannot now challenge the implementation of the set-aside order. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed, upholding the orders of the Single Judge.

Cane Commissioner U.P.Lucknow and 3 Ors. Vs Dhani Ram Verma — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75789-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 246 of 2006

¶4

Appellant :- Cane Commissioner U.P. Lucknow and 3 Ors Respondent :- Dhani Ram Verma Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari, Anand Shanker Asthana

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Ramakant Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

This appeal is directed against orders dated 27.08.2002 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1141 (S/S) of 1998 and 14.02.2006 passed in Review Petition No.153 (W) of 2002 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed and impugned order dated 14.8.1997 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), imposing punishment of dismissal from service, was set aside and respondent was directed to be paid due amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and appellants were further directed to pay salary month by month along with all increments/revised pay scale.

¶8

In the review petition, though the order passed on 27.08.2002 was not interfered with, it was left open for the appellants to proceed afresh in accordance with law against the respondent and other employees.

¶9

When appeal came up before this Court, time was granted to the counsel for appellants to complete instructions pertaining to implementation of the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 27.08.2002 as there was no interim order granted in the special appeal.

¶10

Today, learned counsel for the appellants, based on the instructions, submitted that the order impugned dated

¶11

27.08.2002 has been implemented and that the liberty granted to initiate fresh inquiry against the respondent in review petition has not been availed of by the department.

¶12

Despite implementation of order passed by the appellants, which order was passed about 22 years back, counsel for the appellants attempted to make submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority, as the order passed by the appellate authority, though under challenge, was not set aside. Further submissions have been made that the basis of the order was an interim order passed by the Division Bench regarding non existence of proceedings dated 28.7.1997 whereas, subsequently it has been found that the proceeding does exist, however, not in the register but on separate sheets and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

¶13

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the material available on record.

¶14

The plea sought to be raised now was raised in the review petition and apparently on consideration of the said aspect, the learned Single Judge in the review petition kept the issue open for proceeding afresh against the respondent. The appellants having failed to avail the said opportunity afforded by the learned Single Judge, now cannot, after implementing the order passed, seek setting aside of the said implementation on the grounds sought to be raised.

¶15

So far as the appellate order having not been set aside by the learned Single Judge is concerned, the very fact that the original order was set aside, the appellate order cannot stand.

¶16

In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by learned Single Judge.

¶17

The appeal has no substance, the same is therefore, dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 P.Sri./Manish Kr.

¶19

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Cane Commissioner U.P.Lucknow and 3 Ors. v. Dhani Ram Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cane Commissioner U.P.Lucknow and 3 Ors. v. Dhani Ram Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko and 3 Others vs Devesh Chandra Saxena and Another

Milk Producer Cooperative Union Ltd. Thru. General Manager vs Managing Director Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources, Lko. and Ors. vs Ramashankar

State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Secondary Edu.and Ors. Vs Roshan Jahan

Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs Dr. Ram Singh and Others

U.P.Anusuchit Jati Prathmik Vidyalay Shikshak Asstt. Lko Thru.Gen.Secy.Ramanand Vishwakarma and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others