Dismissed

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others v. Ram Asrey

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2024SPLAD/535/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal by the State challenging the setting aside of a termination order. The High Court held that the termination was based on ineligibility without issuing the requisite show cause notice, violating natural justice, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed; the order dated 02.09.2022 setting aside the termination remains in force.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69950-DB

¶3

Chief Justice's Court

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 535 of 2024

¶5

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Respondent :- Ram Asrey Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Tripathi

¶6

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

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present special appeal.

¶8

For the reasons indicated in the application supported by an affidavit,

¶9

the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶10

On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been finally heard.

¶11

This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent against the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the appellants has been allowed and the order impugned has been quashed.

¶12

The respondent, who was working as part-time Tube-Well Operator, was issued a show cause notice dated 04.01.2012, a copy of which is at Page No.59 of the paper-book, based on a complaint dated 13.12.2011 indicating that he was not attending to his duties and was indulging in canvasing for political parties during the Assembly Elections and, therefore, his conduct was against the Conduct Rules. A response was filed by the respondent denying the allegations based on which the order dated

¶13

¶14

23.01.2012 (Page No.71 of the paper-book) was passed, inter-alia , coming to the conclusion that the allegations against him appears to be correct and as his qualification was not in terms of the Service Rules, his services were ordered to be terminated.

¶15

Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed WRIT-A No.1695 of 2014, which came to be allowed by the order dated 16.02.2022 on coming to the conclusion that while passing the order dated 23.01.2012 the response filed by the respondent was not taken into consideration, however, it was left open for the appellants to initiate fresh proceedings and bring the same to a logical end after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the respondent.

¶16

Pursuant to which, apparently, no fresh notice was issued to the respondent and the order impugned dated 02.09.2022 came to be passed, wherein after noticing the contents of the notice issued in the year 2012, response filed earlier, the comments offered by the officer, it was indicated that as in terms of Government Order dated 31.01.2002, the qualification of the respondent i.e. Prathma and Maddhyama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, were not recognized, there was no substance in the response filed by the respondent and consequently the same was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶17

Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to be conclusion that while deciding the earlier writ petition specific liberty was granted to initiate fresh proceedings, however, no fresh proceedings were initiated and insofar as the eligibility was concerned, it was noticed that in the year 2015, the respondent has acquired the qualification of High School

¶18

¶19

and, therefore, the order passed cannot be sustained and consequently set aside the order dated 02.09.2022 and ordered that consequences to follow, except back-wages.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that admittedly the respondent is ineligible inasmuch as the qualifications which he had i.e. Prathma and Maddhyama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan have ceased to be equivalent to High School by the Government Order dated 31.01.2002 and merely because the respondent has obtained High School qualification in the year 2015 the same cannot validate the engagement and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned.

¶22

Submissions were made that the Government Order is dated 31.01.2002 whereas the respondent was engaged in the year 1994 during which period, qualification of Prathma and Maddhyama were duly recognized.

¶23

Further submissions have been made that the show cause notice issued in the year 2012 was confined to certain actions of the respondent and no notice pertaining to qualification was issued and, therefore, no order based on the alleged disqualification could be passed and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

A bare perusal of the show cause notice, issued in the year 2012, as

¶26

¶27

noticed hereinbefore, indicates that the same was confined to two allegations pertaining to respondent not attending to the duties and indulging in canvasing for political parties during the Assembly Elections. The response was filed denying the allegations, however, the order dated 23.01.2012 was passed rejecting the response and also coming to the conclusion that the qualification held by him i.e. Prathma and Maddhyama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan were not recognized and consequently his services were terminated.

¶28

On challenge laid, the order was set aside and liberty was granted to initiate fresh proceedings. Admittedly, no fresh proceedings were initiated and the order impugned dated 02.09.2022 came to be passed based on the material already available i.e. the show cause notice issued in the year 2012 and the response filed therein and now the operative portion reads as under:-

¶29

"vr% ek0 mPp U;k;ky; y[kuÅ [k.M ihB y[kuÅ }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 16-02-2022 ds vuqikyu esa ;kph jkekljs iq= Jh Bkdqj izlkn xzke lsejktkuhiqj iksLV cjcj ftyk [khjh }kjk izsf"kr izR;kosnu fnukad 15-07-2022 dks ijh{k.k mijkUr fuLrk.k gsrq fuEu rF; izdk'k esa vk;s%&'kklukns'k la[;k 7729@2001&27&fla0&7&i0 vks0&253@01flapkbZ vuqHkkx&07 y[kuÅ fnukad 31 tuojh@2002 fgUnh lkfgR; lEesyu bykgkckn }kjk iznRr izFkek ,oa e/;ek ds izek.k i=ksa dks jkT;k/khu lsokvksa esa ukSdjh ds mn~ns'; ls vekU; djrk gS ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn [k.MihB y[kuÅ }kjk leku izdj.k esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, rFkk mRrj izns'k vLFkk;h ljdkjh lsod ¼lsok lekfIr½ fu;ekoyh&1975 ds izLrj&4¼2½] 4¼5½ ds vUrxZr rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ¼fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh½ tks lsok lekfIr gsrq l{ke vf/kdkjh gS] }kjk vf/kdkjks dk mi;ksx djrs gq, fu.kZ; fy;k x;k ds iquZyksdu ij ;kph ds izkFkZuk i= esa mfYyf[kr izfr mRrj dks cyghu] rF;fofgu ,oa vrkfdZd ekurs gq,s izkFkZuk i= fujLr djrs gq, fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA"

¶30

¶31

A bare perusal of the above reveals that though the show cause notice pertained to certain aspects of his duty i.e. not attending to duties and canvasing for political parties, on a wholly alien ground regarding which no notice was issued, on account of his ineligibility the order impugned came to be passed.

¶32

The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent pertaining to the fact that he was engaged in the year 1994 and the reliance has been placed by the appellants on the Government Order dated 31.01.2002 regarding the qualification of Prathma and Maddhyama having ceased to be recognized, also apparently has substance inasmuch as it is not the case of the appellants that even in the year 1994, the said qualification was not recognized for the purpose of engagement.

¶33

In view thereof, the order impugned passed by the appellants on the aspect of disqualification for violation of principles of natural justice i.e. lack of any notice on the said aspect as well as on merit apparently has no substance. The fact that the respondent has obtained High School qualification in the year 2015, though may not be sufficient for sustaining the original appointment in case he was ineligible, the very fact that the same was never put in issue by issuing notice to him, the said aspect goes in oblivion.

¶34

In view of above discussions, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶35

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

¶36

Order Date :- 17.10.2024/Rakesh/-

¶37

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

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others v. Ram Asrey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others v. Ram Asrey

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devi Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Secy. Cheif Revenue Lko. and 12 Others

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Min. of Samaj Kalyan Vihag Civil Sect. Lko and Another

Praveen Kumar Dubey vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Deffence Sena Bhawan New Delhi and 6 Others

Phool Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment Forest and Climate Change and 5 Others

Surya Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko and 4 Others

Mo. Umar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 7 Others