Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs State Public Service Tribunal And ... on 1 May, 2013
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40361 of 1997
Petitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Coporation
Respondent :- State Public Service Tribunal And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Samir Sharma
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C,Govind Krishna
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 22.9.1993 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (in short "the Tribunal") allowing the Claim Petition filed by the deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar, and the order dated 18.9.1996 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Tribunal rejecting the Delay Condonation Application as well as the Restoration Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking recall of the said judgment and order dated 22.9.1993.
It appears that the deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar was appointed on the post of Conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short "the Corporation") with effect from 15.1.1979. By the order dated 30.3.1988 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition), the petitioner removed the said Shyam Babu Katiyar from service on account of his absence from duty. The deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar thereupon filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal. The said Claim Petition was numbered as Claim Petition No. 529/V of 1991.
It further appears that despite several opportunities having been given to the petitioner, no Counter Affidavit/ Written Statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Thereupon, the Claim Petition was heard by the Tribunal ex-parte, and the same was allowed by the Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 22.9.1993. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Restoration Application dated 16.12.1993, interalia, praying for setting-aside the ex-parte judgment and order dated 22.9.1993. An Application for Condonation of Delay in filing the Restoration Application was also filed. Copies of the Restoration Application and the Delay Condonation Application have been filed and collectively numbered as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition.
By the order dated 18.9.1996, the Tribunal rejected the said Delay Condonation Application as well as the said Restoration Application, interalia, holding that no case for condoning the delay and for setting-aside the ex-parte judgment was made-out.
The petitioner, thereupon, filed the present Writ Petition on 27.11.1997.
By the order dated 28.11.1997, the Writ Petition was admitted. However, no interim order appears to have been granted in the Writ Petition.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the said Shyam Babu Katiyar expired on 11.4.2000.
A Substitution Application alongwith the Delay Condonation Application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for bringing on record the heir and legal representative of the deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar. By the order dated 30.10.2012, the Substitution Application was allowed and the delay in filing the same was condoned. Notice was directed to be issued to the substituted heir and legal representative of the deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar, namely, Smt. Meera Devi. Pursuant to the said order dated 30.10.2012, necessary substitution was made in the array of parties in the Writ Petition. Further, notice was issued to the aforesaid Smt. Meera Devi. By the order dated 1.4.2013, service of notice on the aforesaid Smt. Meera Devi (respondent no. 2/1) was held to be sufficient. The Office has submitted its Report dated 15.4.2013, interalia, stating that no-one has put-in appearance on behalf of the aforesaid Smt. Meera Devi (respondent no. 2/1).
We have heard Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.
The order of punishment dated 30.3.1988 removing the deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar from service was passed on account of absence from duty. A perusal of the order dated 30.3.1988 shows that the petitioner noted various circumstances and concluded that the deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar was not interested in his duty nor was he in need of departmental services. Thus, the petitioner assumed that the deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar had abandoned his service.
The Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.1993 has considered the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner in the order dated 30.3.1988 and has pointed out that the petitioner failed to consider various relevant aspects in passing the order dated 30.3.1988. The Tribunal concluded that having regard to the relevant aspects, the deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar could not be treated to be absconder. Therefore, the Tribunal emphasised that the principles of natural justice have been violated in passing the order dated 30.3.1988. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the Claim Petition and set-aside the punishment order dated 30.3.1988. The petitioner thereafter filed the Restoration Application alongwith the Delay Condonation Application. By the order dated 18.9.1996, the Tribunal rejected the said Applications. In the order dated 18.9.1996, the Tribunal noted various circumstances and concluded that no case for condoning the delay and for setting-aside the ex-parte judgment was made out.
Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the Restoration Application and the Delay Condonation Application filed on behalf of the petitioner, as the petitioner made out sufficient cause for the same.
Having considered the submissions made by Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, we find ourselves unable to accept the same. The Tribunal in its order dated 18.9.1996 has noticed , in detail, various circumstances and has concluded that no case for condoning the delay and for setting-aside the ex-parte judgment was made out. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the judgment and order dated 22.9.1993 was erroneous on merits.
Having considered the submissions made by Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, we find ourselves unable to accept the same. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for passing the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.1993. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said judgment and order dated 22.9.1993.
In view of the above, we are of the view that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Even otherwise, it is noteworthy that the present Writ Petition was filed on 27.11.1997. The judgment and order allowing the Claim Petition filed by the deceased Shyam Babu Katiyar was passed on 22.9.1993. The order dated 18.9.1996 was passed by the Tribunal rejecting the Restoration Application and the Delay Condonation Application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on 27.11.1997.
By the order dated 28.11.1997, the Writ Petition was admitted. However, no interim order appears to have been passed in the present Writ Petition. During the pendency of the Writ Petition since the year 1997, the aforesaid Shyam Babu Katiyar expired and his heir and legal representative, namely, the aforementioned Smt. Meera Devi, was brought on record.
Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the present case is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.5.2013
safi
