Allowed

Chandra Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and Ors.

Allahabad HC3 May 2024WRIA/15239/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed an order that continued the petitioner's pay but stopped increments during suspect criminal proceedings while departmental proceedings were stayed. The court held that penalizing the petitioner regarding increments before departmental proceedings culminated was legally unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18/21.10.2014 and the appellate order dated 23.03.2018 were quashed to the extent of providing for continuation of pay and non-entitlement to increments.

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34611

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15239 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Chandra Pal

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue And Ors.

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar,Anupriya Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Yadav,Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Under challenge is the order dated 18/21.10.2014 (wrongly indicated as 02.10.2014 in the petition), a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the respondents while staying the departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner have also passed an order per which it has been indicated that (a) the pay which the petitioner was receiving prior to his suspension would continue to be paid to him till his criminal case is pending, and (b) during pendency of the criminal case, he would not be entitled for any increments. The appeal filed against the said order has also been rejected vide order dated 23.03.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

¶10

The contention of Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that while the criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner, the respondents have also proceeded against the petitioner departmentally by issuing a charge sheet dated 19.04.2014. On their own accord, they have stayed the departmental proceedings on the ground of pendency of the criminal case but at the same time have passed the order

¶11

impugned whereby it has been provided that (a) the pay which the petitioner was receiving prior to his suspension would continue to be paid to him till his criminal case is pending, and (b) during pendency of the criminal case, he would not be entitled for any increments.

¶12

The argument is that even prior to culmination of the departmental proceedings in which the charges could have been found proved against the petitioner the petitioner has been punished by stopping his increments for indefinite period and by stopping his salary at the same level which was being drawn prior to he being placed under suspension. The argument is that the said order could validly be passed after the petitioner is found guilty in the departmental proceedings but by no stretch of imagination, on the one hand the respondents could have stayed the departmental proceedings on the ground of pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner and on the other hand have also proceeded to punish the petitioner by passing the order impugned. It is thus contended that the impugned order merits to be set-aside. Further contention is that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2024.

¶13

On the other hand, Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit argues that in case the order in the criminal proceedings is against the petitioner and the respondents proceed to dismiss the petitioner from service then it would be very difficult to recover the salary or any increments that have been given to the petitioner and thus there is no infirmity in the order impugned.

¶14

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that admittedly during pendency

¶15

of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner the petitioner had been issued with a charge sheet dated 19.04.2014. The respondents on their own accord have passed the order impugned dated 18/21.10.2014 per which on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings they have stayed the departmental proceedings but at the same time they passed the order impugned indicating (a) the pay which the petitioner was receiving prior to his suspension would continue to be paid to him till his criminal case is pending, and (b) during pendency of the criminal case, he would not be entitled for any increments.The appeal filed against the said order has been rejected vide order dated 23.03.2018.

¶16

A perusal of the order dated 18/21.10.2014 per which the order of stoppage of increments and stoppage of salary of the petitioner at the same level which was being drawn prior to he being placed under suspension indicates that the petitioner has been sought to be punished even while staying the departmental proceedings meaning thereby that even without the departmental proceedings being finalized, the petitioner has been penalized. The said action on the part of the respondents is legally untenable in the eyes of law taking into consideration the rules governing the imposition of penalty. No doubt the respondents are always at liberty to proceed against the petitioner departmentally but passing of the order impugned dated 18/21.10.2014 while staying the departmental proceedings cannot be said to be legally sustainable in the eyes of law to the extent of passing of the orders pertaining to (a) the pay which the petitioner was receiving prior to his suspension would continue to be paid to him till his criminal case is pending, and (b) during pendency of the criminal case, he would not be entitled for any increments.

¶17

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is

¶18

allowed. The order impugned dated 18/21.10.2014, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, so far as it provides for (a) the pay which the petitioner was receiving prior to his suspension would continue to be paid to him till his criminal case is pending, and (b) during pendency of the criminal case, he would not be entitled for any increments, is quashed. The appellate order dated 23.03.2018, a copy of which is Annexure2 to the writ petition, is also quashed.

¶19

Consequences to follow.

¶20

However, this order would not preclude the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner in case they so desire in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.5.2024

¶22

A. Katiyar

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandra Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Nandan Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sugar Industries and Cane Development Lko. and Others

Usha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko. and Others

Vijay Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others

Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt.of Infrastructure and Industrial Development Lko and 2 Others

Mohd. Kalim Ayyubi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and Others