Dismissed

Akshay Kumar v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024SPLA/758/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Special Appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed after the petitioner's counsel opted to withdraw it. Leave was however granted to file an administrate appeal under the relevant Service Rules since the enquiry and punishment were already finalized.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal was dismissed as not pressed, with permission granted to the appellant to file an appropriate administrate appeal.

Akshay Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149347-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 758 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Akshay Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vishal Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶8

Present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 is preferred against the impugned judgement and order dated 2.8.2024 in Writ-A No. 10977 of 2024 (Akshay Kumar v. State Of Up And 2 Others), the operative portion of which, for ready reference, is quoted as under:-

¶9

"5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records what I find in the first instance to be there a pending departmental enquiry and petitioner has approached this Court to interfere at that stage. In my view this is not the stage where this Court should exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the order of enquiry officer in a departmental in-house enquiry. The enquiry should always be conducted as per the procedure and if any discrepancy is detected at any stage, the delinquent employee can always register his complaint and if it is not heard or his complaint has been rejected, he can always question the departmental enquiry report at the stage when disciplinary authority asks for explanation supplying him a copy of the departmental enquiry report.

¶10

6. In such above view of the matter, I find force in the submission so advanced by learned counsel appearing for the Judgeship concerned. It further transpires as has also been argued by Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that Shri Anil Kumar XI had only submitted a report and he was not made departmental witness, inasmuch as the report so submitted was duly proved by the Accountant of the judgeship concerned in his oral testimony. The Accountant may be put to cross-examination for this the petitioner may apply, if he is so desires.

¶11

7. It is also argued by learned counsel for the respondent that petitioner has not been cooperating in the enquiry and he has only appeared twice before the enquiry officer. This factual aspect as argued by learned counsel for the respondent is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is always open for the enquiry officer to proceed and conclude the enquiry in accordance with law even if delinquent employee does not cooperate.

¶12

8. In view of the above, therefore, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order impugned at this stage.

¶13

9. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed subject to the observation made herein above."

¶14

At the very outset, Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the contestingrespondent states that in the midst of the instant proceeding, enquiry is already finalised and the punishment order has been passed on 7.9.2024. Against the said order, the appellant/petitioner has got efficacious remedy to file an appeal under Rule 23(9) of the Uttar Pradesh State District Court Service Rules, 2013.

¶15

Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner fairly states that he is not inclined to press the present special appeal and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. However, leave may be accorded to file an appropriate administrate appeal under the aforesaid rule.

¶16

Consequently, the present special appeal stands dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid leave.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 A.K.Srivastava

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akshay Kumar v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Kumar v. State of Up and 2 Others

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

Amit Kumar Mishra vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mohammad Nadeem and 2 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Committee of Management District Cooperative Bank Limited and Another vs Ram Prakash and 3 Others

Veerendra Singh vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Skill Development and Entreprenurship and 17 Others

Dev Mani Patel and 24 Others vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Basic Education and 35 Others

Kamal Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others