Allowed

Mohd. Inam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2025WRIA/5604/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: censure; punishment; withholding of difference of salary during suspension; suspension period 23.12.2022 to 06.02.2023; U.P. Public Services Tribunal; Claim Petition No. 183 of 2024; preliminary inquiry report dated 05.02.2023; reconsidered preliminary report 27.04.2023; show cause notice 31.08.2023; medical reimbursement papers; principles of natural justice; non-application of mind; su

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the judgment/order dated 05.05.2025 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 183 of 2024 set aside, and consequently the orders dated 28.09.2023 (Disciplinary

Mohd. Inam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30280-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5604 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd. Inam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Mishra

¶5

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

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment/order dated 05.05.2025 rendered by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.183 of 2024, whereby the challenge to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 28.09.2023 imposing the punishment of censure, as upheld by the Appellate Authority on 29.12.2023, has failed. The order passed on 28.09.2023 for withholding the difference of salary for the period of suspension, as upheld by the Appellate Authority, was also challenged before the Tribunal, but the same has met with the same fate.

¶8

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, on the basis of a preliminary report dated 27.04.2023, was issued a show cause notice on 31.08.2023. It is relevant to note that, prior to the preparation of the preliminary report dated 27.04.2023, with respect to the same allegations, a preliminary report was drawn on 05.02.2023, whereby no lapse whatsoever was found to have been proved against the petitioner regarding forwarding of the medical reimbursement papers to the higher authority. The preliminary inquiry report dated 05.02.2023 was reconsidered, and by means of a subsequent preliminary inquiry report dated 27.04.2023, a show cause notice dated 31.08.2023 was issued, whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit his reply within a period of fifteen days. The petitioner, in response to the show cause notice, submitted his explanation on 12.09.2023, clarifying the position regarding the receipt of the medical reimbursement papers from one Police Constable, namely, Rajesh Kumar on 27.08.2022, and forwarding of the same to the concerned office on 28.08.2022. These facts have clearly been stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the

¶9

explanation submitted by the petitioner on

¶10

12.09.2023, as contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition.

¶11

4. The Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the allegations in the show cause notice and the reply filed in response thereto on 12.09.2023, proceeded to pass an order on 28.09.2023, whereby a punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner. Apart from this, an order withholding the difference of salary for the period of suspension from 23.12.2022 to 06.02.2023 was also passed. In the order of punishment, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority has not dealt with the substantive plea raised by the petitioner regarding submission of the medical reimbursement papers and their forwarding on the respective dates to the next higher authority.

¶12

5. On the contrary, the Disciplinary Authority has, based on surmises and conjectures, concluded that there was a lapse on the part of the petitioner in this regard and proceeded to impose the punishment of censure. That apart, the withholding of the difference in salary for the

¶13

period of suspension has also been imposed without recording any definite reasons, and the entire order proceeds based on assumptions concerning allegations that were never part of the show cause notice.

¶14

6. The petitioner appears to have filed two separate appeals against the respective orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of censure and the other withholding the difference of salary for the period of suspension. The appeals filed by the petitioner have reiterated the same defence and explanation that were advanced before the Disciplinary Authority. A specific plea was raised regarding the submission of the medical reimbursement papers on 27.08.2022, as forwarded by the petitioner on 28.08.2022. Relevant evidence in this regard was also submitted by the petitioner in support of his explanation. The Appellate Authority, while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, has failed to address the specific plea raised by the petitioner and instead passed the order in a cursory manner. Similarly, the claim for the difference of salary was rejected by the Appellate

¶15

Authority in a similar manner, without considering the grounds raised in the appeal.

¶16

7. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed on 28.09.2023 and 29.12.2023, as mentioned above, approached the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, by filing the aforementioned claim petition. In the claim petition filed before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, the petitioner averred that he was exonerated from the alleged lapse in the first preliminary report submitted to the competent authority on 05.02.2023. However, for reasons best known to the competent authority, the same was reconsidered, and on the basis of a subsequent preliminary report dated 27.04.2023, a show cause notice was issued to him. The petitioner further submitted before the Tribunal that the show cause notice issued to him on 31.08.2023 was duly replied to by offering just and plausible explanation, particularly regarding the medical reimbursement papers that were submitted on 27.08.2022 and forwarded to the higher authority on 28.08.2022. In the claim petition, the petitioner further averred that the explanation offered by him regarding his

¶17

exoneration in the first preliminary report, and subsequently in his reply to the show cause notice, was not addressed either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority, as they failed to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

¶18

8. The ill motive attributed to the petitioner though being explained has thus been concluded against him on surmises and conjectures. Thus, the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice were, inter alia , taken before the Tribunal while assailing the punishment orders as mentioned above. The Tribunal, while adjudicating upon various grounds raised in the claim petition in the light of counter affidavit filed by the State, has opined that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not suffer from any illegality for the reason that the petitioner did not have a healthy track record to his credit. Therefore, the punishment orders passed against him are in conformity with the law. No specific reasoning has been recorded regarding the pleas raised by the petitioner or as to why such pleas were sidetracked by both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

¶19

9. The first preliminary report, in which the petitioner was exonerated of the alleged lapses, has also not been taken into account. Strangely, it is observed from the order passed by the Tribunal that a part of the show cause notice, which was not relevant, has also been taken into account by the Tribunal while forming its opinion to reject the claim petition. This, according to us, appears to be a serious non-application of mind regarding the grounds urged before the Tribunal, which were left unattended. The findings of the Tribunal should primarily be based on the evidence and the pleas taken by the parties within the scope of show cause notice, or the defence presented by the State, on a definite premise.

¶20

10. In the present case, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner did not have a good track record is beyond the scope of notice, entirely presumptuous and not based on any concrete material. The learned Tribunal, while recording its findings on this aspect of the matter, has clearly erred, and the judgment/order passed by the Tribunal, in our humble consideration, appears to be faulty.

¶21

11. For all these reasons, we are satisfied that the judgment/ order rendered by the Tribunal on 05.05.2025 is erroneous and the same being unsustainable in the eye of law deserves to the set aside.

¶22

12. We accordingly set aside the judgment/ order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the Tribunal, and consequently, the impugned orders dated 28.09.2023 and 29.12.2023 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, respectively.

¶23

13. The present writ petition is allowed .

¶24

[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 cks/-

¶26

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

Mohd. Inam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Inam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Namish Rastogi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Others

Shivam Nigam and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

No. 15417485K,EX-NK (Ts) Mujavar Habib Husen Vs Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lko. Thru. Registrar, Lko. and 4 Others

Abhay Kumar Mishra Vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Member and 2 Others

Ram Chandra Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others