State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secy. Excise Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another vs Prem Singh

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31677-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5995 of 2025

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secy. Excise Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another Respondent :- Prem Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Chaurasia, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶7

2. This writ petition has been filed to assail the judgment/order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No. 2364 of 2022 titled Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition instituted by the respondent herein, arising out of the order of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect coupled with censure.

¶8

3. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 20.01.2022 was appealed against before the Appellate Authority, and the appeal so filed was also rejected on 12.09.2022. Against the said order dated 12.09.2022, the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 2364 of 2022 was instituted by the

¶9

respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the explanation offered by the petitioner, and the orders passed by the authorities were wholly defective and non-speaking. The Tribunal, having regard to the pleadings set up by the parties, has also opined that it was a case of hostile discrimination for the reason that the similarly situated person involved in the very same irregularities was not visited with any serious punishment but was let off with the imposition of a warning.

¶10

4. On a pointed query made to the learned counsel for the State as to how the duties of the two officers stood at variance, no satisfactory reply has been put forth to differentiate between the duties which the officers were obliged to perform.

¶11

5. On the contrary, it is evident from the material on record that all measures required for keeping a constant vigil in the respective area within which the administrative duties of the respondent were fixed were undertaken. Necessary inspections were carried out, and whenever irregularities were found, he proceeded to impose the penalty, which was duly realized from the shopkeepers indulging in malpractice. Insofar as the similarity of irregularities is concerned, the same were compounded with the imposition of a penalty.

¶12

6. Having carefully gone through the judgment impugned herein, we are of the considered opinion

¶13

that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, as a matter of fact, do not deal with the explanation offered by the petitioner, and the finding recorded by the Tribunal to this effect, in our humble consideration, does not suffer from any illegality. Insofar as the ground of discrimination appreciated by the Tribunal is concerned, no material has been brought to our notice which may impeach the said finding recorded by the Tribunal in the judgment impugned.

¶14

7. For what has been recorded above, in our considered opinion, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not warrant interference and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 27.5.2025 cks/-

¶16

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

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secy. Excise Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another v. Prem Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secy. Excise Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another v. Prem Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Thru. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 3 Others vs Ex Hav. (Gnr.) Dileep Kumar (No. 15135570-W)

Ajay Kumar vs Secy. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, U.P.

Radhey Shyam Mishra vs Ministry of Environment Climate Change Thru. Secy. New Delhi Govt. of India and 6 Others

Sita Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Suryabhan Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 2 Others

Rananjay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others