Partly allowed

State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Secrt. Administration Deptt. Deptt. , Lko. and Another v. Sanjay Pratap Singh

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024SPLAD/45/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal by State of U.P. against a Single Judge's order quashing termination imposed after a second inquiry and ordering reinstatement. The Division Bench upheld the finding that fresh inquiry without communicating points of disagreement was invalid, but modified the order to permit the Disciplinary Authority to re-initiate proceedings within four months.

What the court decided

AI extract

State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Secrt… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23631-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 45 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Secrt. Administration Deptt. Deptt. , Lko. And Another Respondent :- Sanjay Pratap Singh Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Dr. Pooja Singh

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Shri Prafull Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

For the reasons indicated in the application seeking condonation of delay, which is not contested, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶8

This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WRIT-A No.26016 of 2021 whereby the order of punishment imposed on the respondent has been quashed and direction has been given to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

¶9

Respondent was issued charge-sheet for major penalty. The Inquiry Officer after holding inquiry exonerated the respondent from all charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, appointed a new Inquiry Officer. The new Inquiry Officer after holding the inquiry held the respondent guilty of the charges and consequently his services were ordered to be terminated.

¶10

Feeling aggrieved the writ petition came to be filed by the respondent with the submissions that the action of the Disciplinary Authority in ordering fresh inquiry, without communicating the points for disagreement to the respondent, is ex-facie contrary to the Rules and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments.

¶11

The learned Single Judge agreed with the submissions made, has passed the order as noticed hereinbefore whereby the order of punishment has been quashed and the petitioner therein has been ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant made submissions that the order of learned Single Judge in quashing the order of punishment and ordering for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits cannot be sustained.

¶13

It is further urged that if there was a procedural lacuna in not communicating the point for disagreement to the respondent in relation to the report of the Inquiry Officer then the learned Single Judge should have remanded the matter for restarting the process from the stage the same stood vitiated and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent, though, contested the submissions made on the ground that the order of punishment of dismissal from service was wholly disproportionate to the charges made and that as the respondent is nearing superannuation, the action of the appellants cannot be sustained. However, considering the matter in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 , requiring remand of the matter to start again from the stage the inquiry stood vitiated, submitted that even if the matter is remanded to the appellants for proceeding further in the matter, they must be directed to conclude the same with utmost expedition.

¶15

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

¶16

Insofar as the finding of the learned Single Judge in relation to the order of holding fresh inquiry without communicating the points of disagreement to the delinquent officer is concerned, the same cannot be faulted in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 84 .

¶17

However, once the writ Court came to the said conclusion, though, the order of punishment was liable to be quashed, thereafter the matter should have been remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed from the stage of receipt of the Inquiry Report and the non-grant of the said direction cannot be sustained.

¶18

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed . The order dated 05.07.2023 of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that though the order of punishment dated 12.08.2021 shall remain quashed, the appellants would be free to re-initiate the process from the stage, the inquiry report was received by the

¶19

Disciplinary Authority. In case, the Authority decides to disagree with the Inquiry Report, the points of disagreement be informed to the delinquent officer and after seeking his response, the Disciplinary Authority may proceed further in the matter.

¶20

In view of the fact that the respondent is due to retire within a period of six months, the appellants are directed to conclude the said procedure, in case they decide to initiate, the same within a period of four months from today.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.3.2024 Asheesh/Rakesh

¶22

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

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Secrt. Administration Deptt. Deptt. , Lko. and Another v. Sanjay Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Secrt. Administration Deptt. Deptt. , Lko. and Another v. Sanjay Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M, Pushpa Devi Vidya Mandir, Hardoi Thru. Manager Shri Bindra Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic Education, Lucknow and Others

C/M, Niswa Mahmoodiya Darul Uloom, Kushi Nagar Thru. Manager, Mohd. Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic Education, Lucknow and Others

C/M, Khushhal Das Montessori School, Lucknow Thru. Manager Shri Mishri Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic Education, Lucknow and Others

The Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow and Others vs Satya Sharan Singh

Dr. Renu Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others vs Rajesh Chaudhary