Partly allowed

Mishri Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024WRIA/7956/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought the quashing of orders directing a fresh inquiry into his disciplinary matter and a writ of Mandamus to prevent such re-enquiry. The court allowed the petition in part, directing the inquiry officer to conduct a further inquiry from the stage of defect instead of a fresh inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the inquiry officer to conduct a further inquiry from the stage of defect within six weeks.

Mishri Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63873

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7956 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mishri Singh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶9

"I. Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 15.5.2024 passed by the opposite party No.1, (so far as it relates to make re- enquiry from the level of enquiry officer) obtained on 3.9.2024, and the consequential order dated 10.7.2024 passed by the opposite party No.2, contained as Annexure No.1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition.

¶10

II. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to make re-enquiry in the matter and to consider the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Sub Divisional officer from the date, the similarly situated persons were promoted. "

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the disciplinary authority has passed an erroneous and illegal order dated 16.6.2023 which was assailed before the appellate authority i.e., Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue. The appellate authority set aside the punishment order dated 16.6.2023 for the reason that in the issue in question, the inquiry officer has not conducted the inquiry properly without verifying the material, therefore, the order the disciplinary authority passed on such inquiry report is illegal. In view of the above, the appellate authority directed the inquiry officer to

¶12

make re-inquiry in the issue in question.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is to retire within a period of two years and if the reinquiry is conducted and concluded taking substantial time, the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and injury. He has further submitted that if there was any defect in the inquiry proceedings, the matter may be remanded back to the inquiry officer from the stage of defect but the direction for re-inquiry should have not been issued, rather further inquiry should have been directed.

¶14

I find strength and substance on the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, without interfering the order being passed by the appellate authority, the direction is issued to the inquiry officer in an issue in question to make further inquiry from the stage of defect and conclude the same with expedition preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Immediately after the conclusion of the inquiry in terms of the order of the appellate authority, the inquiry report thereof shall be submitted before the disciplinary authority forthwith so that the disciplinary authority could pass a final order strictly, in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner seeking explanation from him. In any case, the inquiry officer shall conclude the inquiry within the aforesaid stipulated period, the disciplinary authority shall pass a final order, if it is so required, within a further period of one month.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 Shravan

¶17

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶18

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

Mishri Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mishri Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khushi Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sujan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 4 Others

Dhoop Narayan @ Dhrup Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Govind Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Fishery Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Brijendra Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others