Allowed

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Co-Operative Lko. and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024WRIA/15619/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a disciplinary punishment order. The court found the order was flawed for failing to address grounds raised by the employee and for imposing multiple punishments under regulations permitting only one. The impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The punishment order dated 28.10.2014 was quashed, and the competent authority was directed to pass a fresh order within four weeks.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72898

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15619 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Co-Operative Lko. And Anr.

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranendra Mirdha,Kishore Kumar Singh,Matambar Singh,Ram Sagar

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Singh

¶8

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶10

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶11

Under challenge is the punishment order dated 28.10.2014, a copy of which is part of Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with three penalties i.e. A) Withholding of two increments permanently, B) Recovery of amount of Rs. 84,540/and C) Censure entry.

¶12

Raising a challenge to the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a show cause notice dated 28.07.2014, a copy of which is Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, had been issued to the petitioner after inquiry proceedings. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide reply dated 20.08.2014, a copy of which is Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition.

¶13

The competent authority, vide order impugned dated 28.10.2014, though purports to have considered the reply but a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that none of the grounds, as had been raised by the petitioner in his reply dated 20.08.2014, have been considered

¶14

rather the said reply has been dealt with in a cursory manner by indicating that the reply has been considered without even discussing the grounds raised in the said reply.

¶15

The other ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Regulation 84 of U.P. Co-operative Societies' Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 1975") only one punishment can be imposed on an employee but a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that it is an amalgam of three punishments which could not be imposed.

¶16

On the other hand, Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has defended the order impugned.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for contesting parties and having perused the records it emerges that after due disciplinary proceedings, a show cause notice dated 28.07.2014 had been issued to the petitioner to which a reply had been given by the petitioner on 20.08.2014. Thereafter, the impugned punishment order dated 28.10.2014 has been passed.

¶18

A bare perusal of the punishment order would indicate that although the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply but none of the grounds as had been raised by the petitioner in the reply dated 20.08.2014 have even been referred to in the impugned order.

¶19

The other aspect of the matter is that in terms of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 only one punishment could have been imposed but impugned punishment order indicates that three punishments have been imposed. Thus, it is apparent that on both the aforesaid grounds, the impugned punishment order runs foul.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed .

¶21

The order impugned dated 28.10.2014, a copy of which is part of

¶22

Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition, is quashed.

¶23

The competent authority would proceed to pass afresh order after considering the reply of the petitioner dated 20.08.2014.

¶24

Let such order be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

Consequences to follow thereafter.

¶26

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Co-Operative Lko. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Co-Operative Lko. and Anr.

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

Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Nalkoop Irrigation Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

M/a Paduka Multi Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Thru Auth. Signatory Archana Srivastava vs M/S Spencers Retail Ltd. Thru Its General Manager U.P. East

Onkar Nath Chaturvedi Vs Gramin Bank of Aryavart Thru Chairman Head Office Lko and Ors.

Smt. Arun Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamaik Edu. Lko and Others

Ram Jatan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chini Udyog and Ganna Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Jaya Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others