Allowed¶18

Pushp Dev v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2025WRIA/5534/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pushp Dev v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.; WRIT - A No. 5534 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:41259; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Justice Abdul Moin; quashing of departmental punishment orders dated 07.06.2023 and 24.01.2025; disciplinary/punishment order precedent; Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P., Writ A No. 10999 of 2023, judgment dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure-12); reinstatement, current salary, subsistence allowance, backwages dependent on fresh inquiry; service and monetary benefits; liberty for fresh enquiry; UPPCL.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the orders dated 24.01.2025 and 07.06.2023 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3; consequences to follow; liberty to the respondents to undertake a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. ¶18

Pushp Dev Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the orders dated 24.01.2025 and 07.06.2023 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3; consequences to follow; liberty to the respondents to undertake a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned punishment orders dated 07.06.2023 and 24.01.2025 passed by opposite party Nos. 3 and 2 fall to be quashed, the matter being squarely covered by this Court's earlier judgment dated 19.10.2023 in Writ A No.10999 of 2023 (Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors.). +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed and the punishment orders dated 24.01.2025 and 07.06.2023 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are quashed.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Consequences of the quashing shall follow, and the respondents are left at liberty to undertake a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 5534 of 2025, Pushp Dev v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko and others (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:41259; Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.; order dated 18.7.2025). Petitioner, aggrieved by punishment orders dated 07.06.2023 and 24.01.2025 passed by opposite party Nos. 3 and 2 (Annexures 01 and 02), sought their quashing by certiorari along with consequential service and monetary benefits by mandamus. Petitioner's counsel argued the matter was squarely covered by this Court's judgment and order dated 19.10.2023 in Writ A No.10999 of 2023, In Re Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors (filed as Annexure-12), whose operative part (reproduced in this judgment) had quashed a similarly dated punishment order, directed reinstatement with current salary, kept backwages dependent on the outcome of any fresh inquiry, and left the employer liberty to hold a fresh inquiry on the existing charge-sheet. Respondents' counsel contended the precedent was not applicable to the facts but was not in a position to persuade this Court to take a different view than that taken in the order dated 19.10.2023. Considering the aforesaid, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders dated 24.01.2025 and 07.06.2023 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, directed that consequences follow, and left the respondents at liberty to undertake a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41259

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5534 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Pushp Dev Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrish Kumar Gaur Counsel for Respondent :- Neerav Chitravanshi

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file rejoinder affidavit and prays that the matter may be heard and decided finally.

¶8

Heard Shri Shrish Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶9

Instant writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶10

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order of punishment dated 07.06.2023 & 24.01.2025 passed by opposite party No.3 and 2 as contained in Annexure No.01 & 02 to the writ petition.

¶11

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant all service benefit including the monetary benefits consequent upon quashing of impugned orders dated 07.06.2023 & 24.01.2025 as contained in annexure No.1 & 2 to the writ petition.

¶12

(c)...

¶13

(d)...."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 19.10.2023 passed by this Court in Writ A No.10999 of 2023 In Re Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors, a copy of which is Annexure-12 to the petition.

¶15

To the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents states that aforesaid judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case but he is not in a position to persuade this Court to take a different view than that taken in the order dated 19.10.2023.

¶16

For the sake of convenience, the operative part of the order dated 19.10.2023 is reproduced below:-

¶17

"23. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow is hereby quashed. The respondents are ordered to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, and pay him current salary from the date of this judgment. If, however, the respondents choose to place the petitioner again under suspension in view of the liberty hereinafter indicated, the petitioner shall be paid his subsistence allowance regularly. The respondents shall be at liberty to undertake inquiry afresh in the matter, on the basis of the charge-sheet, already issued. The respondents in that event will proceed, bearing in mind the guidance in this judgment. If the respondents elect to proceed against the petitioner as per liberty given, it would be open to the respondents either to reinstate the petitioner, assigning him duties or not, but paying salary to him, or place him under suspension pending the inquiry to be held afresh. The question of payment of backwages shall depend upon the outcome of the inquiry and the decision taken by the respondents in the proceedings, if they elect to pursue such proceedings. It is also ordered that if fresh proceedings are taken, the same shall be concluded expeditiously, wherein the petitioner shall cooperate. There shall be no order as to costs."

¶18

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 24.01.2025 and 07.06.2023 passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 are quashed. Consequences to follow. The respondents shall be at liberty to undertake a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 A. Katiyar

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pushp Dev v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushp Dev v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prem Narayan Jha Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Min. of Communication and 2 Others

Devendra Kumar Mittal Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Abdul Aziz Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others

Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 6 Others

Meera Srivastava and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Banshidhar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others