Disposed

Mumtaj Ahmad Ansari v. Nagar Panchayat Katra Distt. Gonda Thru. Its Executive Officer and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024WRIA/2990/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order appointing an Enquiry Officer against a retired employee. The court held prima facie merit in the petitioner's claim that post-retirement enquiry proceedings require specific approval and stayed the impugned order pending counters.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay granted on the impugned order dated 11-03-2024 appointing an Enquiry Officer. Counter affidavits directed to be filed within three weeks.

Mumtaj Ahmad Ansari vs Nagar Panchayat Katra Distt… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2990 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Mumtaj Ahmad Ansari Respondent :- Nagar Panchayat Katra Distt. Gonda Thru. Its Executive Officer And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nida Navi,Rohit Tripathi,Shishir Srivastava,Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqvi Counsel for Respondent :- Rishi Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Surya Prakash Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite parties and the same is taken on record.

¶6

Office is directed to print the name of Sri Surya Prakash Singh, Advocate, as counsel for the opposite parties, when the case is listed next.

¶7

Heard Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶8

Under challenge is the order 11-03-2024 passed by the opposite parties, whereby an enquiry proceeding is contemplated and an Enquiry Officer is appointed to enquire into the matter.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Nayab Moharir on 07-06-1984 in the respondent department and thereafter, while posting as Revenue and Tax Moharir, he was removed from service on 06-02-2009, without holding any enquiry, whereafter, the order dated 06-02-2009 was challenged by way of preferring Writ Petition No. 2289(S/S)of 2009 and the same was allowed on 07-08-2009 by this court and the enquiry proceedings were quashed and the opposite parties were given liberty to proceed with fresh enquiry and again, an erroneous enquiry was conducted and removal order of the petitioner was passed on 06-08-2015, which was again assailed by the petitioner, by way of preferring Writ A No. 6024 of 2015, before this court and the said writ petition was allowed, wherein the removal order dated 06-08-2015 was quashed and it was opened

¶10

to the respondents that 'if required, they may proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.'

¶11

Adding his arguments, he submits that the opposite parties proceeded against the petitioner while contemplating the fresh enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer vide impugned order dated 11-03-2024, which is not permissible under the law as after the retirement of an employee, without seeking any approval from the Governor, no enquiry can proceed and in this matter, the same is lacking. He added that in the Judgment and Order dated 06-11-2023, it is not open for the opposite parties to proceed with a fresh enquiry, rather it is open for the respondents that 'if required, to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law' and the law does not permit the opposite parties to proceed with the fresh enquiry after the retirement of the such employee without seeking approval as per the provisions of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations.

¶12

Concluding his arguments, he submits that in view of the aforesaid, the whole proceedings of the enquiry initiated by the respondents vide impugned order dated 11-03-2024, vitiates in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶13

On the other hand, Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has very vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that there are material concealment of facts while instituting the instant writ petition as the petitioner sought a month's time to reply to the chargesheet on the ground of his illness and the same is not disclosed in this writ petition. He next added that the enquiry is proceeded as per the Judgment and Order dated 06-11-2023 passed by this court in Writ A No. 6024 of 2015, as it is open to the respondents that in case of requirement, they can proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, and therefore, submission is that there is no ambiguity or erroneousness in the order dated 11-03-2024 by which the enquiry proceedings are contemplated and the Enquiry Officer is appointed.

¶14

Prima-facie, there seems to be force in argument of counsel for the petitioner, thus matter requires consideration.

¶15

Let Counter Affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within three weeks.

¶16

Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

¶17

List/put up this matter in Fourth Week of May,2024.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 1103-2024, shall remain stayed.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 AKS

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mumtaj Ahmad Ansari v. Nagar Panchayat Katra Distt. Gonda Thru. Its Executive Officer and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaj Ahmad Ansari v. Nagar Panchayat Katra Distt. Gonda Thru. Its Executive Officer and 2 Others

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

Priayanka Devi vs Shri Pratap Singh Baghel, Secy. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj

Manish Yadav vs the Chairman and Managing Director Food Corporation of India Headquarters and 2 Others

Priayanka Devi vs Shri Pratap Singh Baghel, Secy. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj

Christian Hospital School of Nursing vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ramesh Chauhan and 3 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others

Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Another