Disposed

Satyabhan Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2025WRIA/3710/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Class-IV employee appointed on compassionate grounds was terminated for suppression of material facts but later acquitted in the related criminal trial. His representation for reinstatement was rejected without considering the acquittal. The High Court set aside the termination and rejection orders and remitted for fresh decision in light of Supreme Court precedent.

What the court decided

AI extract

Satyabhan Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45183

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3710 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Satyabhan Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pashali Slolanki,R.K. Singh. Rajput Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Prasad Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R.K. Singh Rajput, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ram Prasad Dube, Advocate for Respondents-3 to 5.

¶7

In the present case it appears that petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the year 1986 as a Class-IV employee and he was terminated by an order dated 30.09.2006 on ground that he has suppressed certain material information. Said order remained unchallenged and since there was a direction to lodged FIR against petitioner, therefore, he faced criminal trial wherein by judgment dated 25.11.2022 he was acquitted since prosecution was failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that thereafter petitioner approached the concerned respondent that he may be reinstated and since it was not done, therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No. 6982 of 2024, which was disposed of that petitioner’s grievance be considered.

¶9

In aforesaid circumstances petitioner filed a representation stating the fact about his acquittal. Learned counsel submits that by impugned order his representation was rejected reiterating the grounds taken in termination order that it is a case of suppression of material facts without even taking note the effect of acquittal, if any.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for Respondents-3 to 5 is not able to satisfy the Court that effect of acquittal in criminal case was considered in impugned order, i.e., either on facts or on law.

¶11

In aforesaid circumstances, considering that said issue has not been considered by concerned respondent, therefore, Court is of the view that impugned order in its present form does not survive. 7. In view of above, impugned orders dated 30.09.2006 and 10.01.2025 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to concerned respondent to pass a fresh order after taking note of effect of acquittal as well as judgments passed by Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S.Samuthiram, 2013 (1) SCC 598; State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena, 2021 SCC Online SC 252; and, Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1.

¶12

Petitioner will submit a fresh representation describing facts as well as position of law on the issue within a period of two weeks from today and thereafter concerned respondent will take a fresh decision within a short period taking note that petitioner is presently aged about 60 years.

¶13

With aforesaid observations/ directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 AK

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyabhan Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satyabhan Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Narayan Tripathi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Prakash vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Susmita Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Balbhadra vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shanker Lal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Girijesh Kumar vs State of Up and 4 Others