Allowed

Devi Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Lko.and Ors.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024WRIA/18158/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a departmental punishment order quashing it for violation of natural justice. The court found no oral enquiry was conducted under the relevant rules despite the submission of an enquiry report immediately after the petitioner's reply.

What did the court decide?

The impugned punishment order dated 18.07.2019 and the appellate order dated 30.07.2020 were quashed.

Devi Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17259

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18158 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Devi Prakash Pandey

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Lko.And Ors.

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Srivastava,Shailendra Kumar Dubey

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned punishment order dated 18.07.2019 and the appellate order dated 30.07.2020 passed by Respondent No.3 - Collector, District - Pratapgarh and Respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj respectively.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of peon and is working on the same post. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the letter of the Principle Secretary dated 19.03.2019 the petitioner was placed under suspension on 29.03.2019 and the departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The chargesheet was issued on 25.05.2019, which was served upon the petitioner on 30.05.2019 against which the petitioner had submitted his reply on 28.06.2019.

¶12

It is further submitted that after the submission of the reply by the petitioner against the chargesheet, enquiry officer had never informed any date, place and time to the petitioner for holding the oral enquiry in the matter and in support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the internal page 6 of the impugned order where it has been stated that the enquiry report was submitted on 29.06.2019 and the date of reply submitted by the petitioner was shown as 25.06.2019 whereas it is 28.06.2019 meaning hereby on the very next day of the submission of the reply the enquiry report was submitted and in pursuance thereof the impugned punishment order had been passed. The said action on the part of the respondents is in violation of principle of natural justice and the impugned order is liable to the quashed.

¶13

On the other hand learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been given opportunity against the chargesheet dated 25.05.2019 and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner the enquiry report was submitted. However this contention does not appear to be correct looking to the different dates of the reply to the chargesheet and the date of enquiry report.

¶14

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 28.06.2019 against the chargesheet dated 25.05.2019 which was served upon the petitioner on 30.05.2019. After the submission of the reply on the very next date as it is admitted case of the respondent the enquiry report was submitted on 29.06.2019 meaning hereby there was no information to the petitioner about the time, date and place fixed by the enquiry officer for holding the oral enquiry, if any. No enquiry was conducted as per Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 prior to the passing of order of major punishment and the order is in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Even in the counter affidavit no specific denial to this effect as averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made hereinabove, the Writ petition is allowed.

¶16

The impugned punishment order dated 18.07.2019 and the appellate order dated 30.07.2020 are hereby quashed.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.2.2024 S. Kumar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devi Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Lko.and Ors.

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 Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vigilance Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Sarojini Thakur Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Aanand Kumar Yadav and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others