Allowed

Shiv Kumar Dubey v. U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Communication Deptt. of Posts and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2025WRIA/4321/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against CAT rejection of challenge to compulsory retirement under Rule 19 CCS (CCA) Rules following criminal conviction later stayed on appeal. Court held the appellate authority failed to consider the stay order; set aside Tribunal and appellate orders and restored the departmental appeal for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal judgment and appellate authority's order set aside; petitioner's appeal dated 11.10.2013 restored to the appellate authority for fresh decision within three months.

Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4321 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Dubey Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. The Secy. Ministry Of Communication Deptt. Of Posts And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Vaish,Dharmendra Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B.Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India.

¶6

The present writ petition is directed against the judgement/order rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench Lucknow in Original Application No.301 of 2014 decided on 11.02.2025 whereby challenge to the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner under Rule-19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been turned down.

¶7

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in S.T.No.57 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.945 of 2009 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC at P.S. Maharajganj District Faizabad.

¶8

The conviction and sentence inflicted upon the petitioner gave rise to the disciplinary action under Rule-19 of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 for which a notice was issued to him on 28.05.2013 which was replied on 19.06.2013. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner who was convicted and sentenced in S.T.

¶9

Page no.1 of 5

¶10

No.57 of 2011 had instituted the criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence and was enlarged on bail by order dated 17.04.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2013. The petitioner in the reply filed against the show cause notice disclosed this fact before the competent authority. The competent authority on an overall consideration of the matter nevertheless proceeded to pass an order against him whereby he was compulsorily retired from service on 30.08.2013. The order of compulsorily retirement being a major punishment was appealed against by the petitioner under Rule 27 sub clause 2 (c) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.

¶11

The case of the petitioner was further fortified by an order passed on 05.10.2013 on an application filed by him for stay of the conviction and sentence. This Court having regard to the totality of the circumstances was pleased to stay the conviction and execution of sentence by recording detailed reasons. In the normal course such an order once passed by the appellate court of competent jurisdiction would not permit the consequence of disciplinary action under Rule-19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the department would not hasten to initiate any such proceeding.

¶12

In the present case, however, the show cause notice had already come to be issued and a reply in response thereto was previously filed by the petitioner on 19.06.2013 when he was merely enlarged on bail and it is for this reason that the disciplinary authority had

¶13

Page no.2 of 5

¶14

proceeded to issue a show cause notice against which the reply filed by him met with an unfortunate consequence of compulsory retirement.

¶15

At the appellate stage, the fact of the conviction and sentence being stayed was specifically pointed out by the petitioner in paragraph 4.12 of the appeal preferred by him. The appellate authority while passing the impugned order on 06.05.2014 has not considered such a relevant aspect of the matter at all and proceeded to confirm the order passed by the disciplinary authority without analysing as to the sufficiency of the reasons for initiating disciplinary action.

¶16

The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority mentioned above instituted Original Application No.301 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. The petitioner in the O.A. filed by him before the Tribunal specifically pleaded in paragraph-4 (xvi) as under:-

¶17

“That it is respectfully submitted that the appellate authority has failed to take notice of the order dated 05.10.2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court and as such the order dated 31.03.2014/6.05.2014 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the applicant is wholly illegal and not legally sustainable.”

¶18

The reply filed by the Union of India in response to paragraph-4 (xvi) states as under:-

¶19

“18. That the contents of Sub para (xv) & (xvi) of para-4 Original Application are not admitted hence denied. It is stated that the order dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure N0.5 of the Original Application) passed in the criminal appeal no.576 of 2013 the Hon’ble High court has

¶20

Page no.3 of 5

¶21

only stayed half of the amount of fine during

¶22

pendency of the appeal. The Hon’ble High Court in the order dated 05.10.2013 (Annexure No.8 to the Original Application) has only

¶23

suspended the conviction and execution of sentence till the disposal of appeal.”

¶24

On a consideration of the rival contentions, it is gathered that Union of India while replying to the averments made in the O.A. has also not come up with the correct understanding of stay of conviction and sentence. The order of stay of conviction has a significant implication of foreclosing a parallel action against a public servant by acknowledging a hope of success in the appeal arising out of his conviction. In any case the vital aspect of the matter as to whether the proceedings under Rule-19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were at all warranted or not, it remained unconsidered by the appellate authority.

¶25

Learned tribunal while going into all the relevant aspects of the matter has though expressed the opinion on procedural part regarding initiation of proceedings under Rule19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 but has not taken into account the implications of the order passed by the appellate court on 05.10.2013 in Cr i minal Appeal No 576 of 2013. Non application of mind on such a vital aspect of the matter by the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal clearly renders the impugned decision faulty in the eye of law.

¶26

This Court having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India is of the considered opinion

¶27

Page no.4 of 5

¶28

that the Tribunal while rejecting the O.A. fell in error particularly on the aspect of nonconsideration of a vital submission made by the petitioner before the appellate authority to justify the order passed by him.

¶29

That being the position, the judgement/order passed by the Tribunal as well as the appellate authority are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on the appeal filed by the petitioner on 11.10.2013. The appeal shall stand restored before the appellate authority and the petitioner shall appear before the appellate authority alongwith a certified copy of this order within a period of four weeks from today. On filing of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall proceed with the matter and decide the appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months after affording due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶30

The impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the appellate authority are hereby set aside .

¶31

In the result, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to cost.

¶32

( Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.)

¶33

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Shahnaz

¶34

Page no.5 of 5

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Kumar Dubey v. U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Communication Deptt. of Posts and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Dubey v. U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Communication Deptt. of Posts and 3 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

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy.Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director New Delhi and Another Vs Pradeep Kumar and 7 Others

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Sepawali Ale @ Sepali Bagale Vs Union of India Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Defense, New Delhi and 4 Others

Dr. Narendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Education and Research Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Sagar Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others