Rakesh Kumar Nayak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home (Police Services) Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024WRIA/9033/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recorded that the State failed to prove the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner despite denying it. The Inquiry Officer had returned the file to the Disciplinary Authority citing anomalies. The court appointed a specific date for the State to file a counter-affididavit clarifying these discrepancies and the status of the inquiry.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rakesh Kumar Nayak vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9033 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Nayak Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home (Police Services) Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Raj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya)

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5.

¶6

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶7

"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 issued by the opposite party No.1 (by summoning the same) as well as the departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice."

¶8

3. At the very outset, Sri Vikas Singh, learned Standing Counsel has shown the copy of instructions letter dated 02.10.2024 provided by the Additional Director of Police, Administration, U.P., Lucknow enclosing therewith the copy of the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 and other documents as well as office order dated 25.05.2023, the same are taken on record.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no chargesheet dated 24.05.2023 has ever been served upon the petitioner, therefore, the copy of the charge-sheet may be summoned. Along with the aforesaid instructions, the copy of the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 has been annexed and copy of the letter dated 25.05.2023 has been enclosed whereby the Inspector General of Police (Railways), Lucknow has been appointed Inquiry Officer. In the aforesaid officer order dated 25.05.2023, it has been directed that the departmental inquiry be concluded within a period of one month.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the issue in question, which is of the year 2015, the show cause notice was issued against the petitioner and after considering the explanation of the petitioner the punishment of censure entry and withholding integrity for the year 2015 has been proposed seeking explanation thereof. The petitioner submitted his

¶11

explanation, then the then Director General of Police passed an order dated 31.12.2022 (Annexure No.5) withdrawing the proposed punishment of censure entry and withholding the integrity for the year 2015 directing for departmental inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short "Rules, 1999"). After the aforesaid order having been passed on 31.12.2022, no information of any kind whatsoever has been provided to the petitioner to the effect that any departmental inquiry is pending against him inasmuch as no charge-sheet has been provided to the petitioner.

¶12

6. In the meantime, the petitioner filed one writ petition bearing Writ-A No.6566 of 2023 seeking promotion with effect from the date the same has been given to identically placed employees/ juniors to the petitioner. That writ petition is still pending consideration. In the aforesaid writ petition one counter affidavit has been filed by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) wherein it has been indicated in para-12 that the charge-sheet has been given to the petitioner on 24.05.2023, though the copy of the charge-sheet has not been enclosed with the counter affidavit.

¶13

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.9 of the writ petition, which is a letter dated 13.12.2023 preferred by the Inspector General of Police (Railways), Lucknow/ Inquiry Officer addressing to the Under Secretary, Government of U.P., Home Department (Police Services), Lucknow apprising that he has received the copy of the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 and the officer order dated 25.05.2023 to serve upon the petitioner but in the aforesaid charge-sheet there are some anomalies which should be rectified. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer requested from the government to rectify those shortcomings and anomalies and prepare a fresh charge-sheet against the petitioner and after getting the same approved may be provided to him so that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner could be conducted. Along with the aforesaid letter, the Inquiry Officer i.e. the Inspector General of Police (Railways), Lucknow has sent back all the documents/ papers to the State Government/ Disciplinary Authority.

¶14

8. Sri Rishi Raj has submitted that if vide letter dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure No.9) the Inquiry Officer has requested to prepare a fresh charge-sheet and got approved so that it could be served upon the petitioner, then the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 may not be treated as the charge-sheet in the eyes of law as it has lost its efficacy. To the best of the information of the petitioner, no fresh charge-sheet has been prepared.

¶15

Therefore, the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 may not be treated as the charge-sheet. Hence, the reference thereof in para-12 of the counter affidavit filed in Writ-A No.6566 of 2023 is misconceived.

¶16

9. Today, Sri Vikas Singh, by means of instructions letter dated 02.10.2024 has provided both the aforesaid papers i.e. the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 and the office order dated 25.05.2023, but in the aforesaid instructions this fact has not been indicated that the Inquiry Officer has already sent back the complete paper-book relating to the petitioner to the Disciplinary Authority on 13.12.2023. Therefore, the information so provided today, prima-facie, is not a proper information. The photocopy of the instructions letter along with other documents has been provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner on the direction of the Court by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶17

10. The matter requires consideration.

¶18

11. Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks by the authority who has provided the aforesaid instructions inasmuch the same authority has filed the counter affidavit in Writ-A No.6566 of 2023.

¶19

12. At this stage, Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5, need not file any counter affidavit.

¶20

13. List this case on 04.11.2024 as fresh along with Writ-A No.6566 of 2023. On that date, this matter may be taken up after fresh cases.

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 Suresh/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Kumar Nayak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home (Police Services) Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rakesh Kumar Nayak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home (Police Services) Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and Others

Anjali Rana Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Edu. New Delhi and 3 Others

Braj Bihari Lal Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy., Higher Edu., Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Smt. Leela Joshi Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko.

Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply and 5 Others

Ashish Dwivedi Vs U.P. Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others