Allowed

Rajesh Kumar v. Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024WRIA/2437/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a punishment order dated 11.4.2023 passed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The High Court held that the order was vitiated for non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner, citing settled law. The petition was allowed at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.4.2023 is quashed at the admission stage.

Rajesh Kumar vs Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30917

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2437 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Respondent :- Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Kapoor

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Deepak Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, counsel for the opposite parties.

¶7

In response to the order dated 15.4.2024 of this Court, Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that after the enquiry was concluded, the show cause notice was given to the petitioner, by the disciplinary authority but he has failed to demonstrate with respect to the fact that the enquiry report has ever been furnished or served upon the petitioner.

¶8

The counsel for the petitioner submits that enquiry report has never been served upon the petitioner but after the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority on 13.7.2022, petitioner replied the same. He added that it is well settled proposition of law that if the enquiry report is not served upon the delinquent employee, prior to passing the punishment order, the same assails illegality and infirmity.

¶9

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment reported in AIR 1991 SCC 471; Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan and submitted that Full Bench of the Apex Court has decided the issue involved in the present case. He has referred paragraph no. 18 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶10

"18. We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter. "

¶11

Referring the aforesaid he submits that it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that 'whenever the Inquiry Officer furnished a report to the disciplinary authority after the conclusion of the inquiry, holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges, with proposal for any particular punishment, the delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of such report and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice. Therefore, submission is that the impugned order dated 11.4.2023 may be quashed.

¶12

Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and after going through the settled propositions of law, as well as the facts intimated by the counsel for the opposite parties on the basis of the instructions with respect to the non supply of the inquiry report, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order dated 11.4.2023 is hit by the settled propositions of law and thus the same is hereby quashed at admission stage.

¶13

The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority concerned to take decision a fresh, after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report along with show cause notice to the delinquent employee, within a period of three weeks and if such reply is given by the delinquent employee, within 15 days, the disciplinary authority shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within further a period of three months, subject to the cooperation of the petitioner.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 Anuj Singh

¶16

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

Rajesh Kumar v. Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Nihor Shukla Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications and 2 Others

Rama Shanker Shukla Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications and 2 Others

Ram Kripal Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricul. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shanti Devi Jain Degree College, Muzaffarnagar Thru. Manager Subhash Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lucknow and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Avinash Kumar Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical Education and Training, Lucknow and Others