Tilakdhari Ram vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 2053 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R
 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49235 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Tilakdhari Ram
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.S.P. Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

The petitioner is a Collection Amin in district Azamgarh. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and on 19.11.1999 a major punishment was imposed upon him withholding his one annual increment for ever.

Aggrieved by the said order on 8.12.1999, the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Rule 11 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short Rules, 1999), before the respondent no.3. When no decision was taken on the said appeal the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 60625 of 2011 (Tilakdhari Ram v. State of U.P. And others) for a direction upon the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously.

From the record it appears that another departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice dated 10.8.2006 to explain as to why he may not be punished for low collection of government dues. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Having not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner a major punishment was imposed upon him on 23.11.2006 withholding one annual increment and a minor punishment of adverse entry in his Service Book. Dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner preferred another appeal before the appellate authority. When the said appeal was not decided the petitioner preferred another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 61698 of 2011 (Tilakdhari Ram v. State of U.P. And others) for a direction upon the appellate authority to decide the appeal within stipulated time. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the appellate authority to decide the matter expeditiously. In compliance thereof the appellate authority passed an order on 13.1.2012 and has rejected both the appeals of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 13.1.2012 the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 9960 of 2012 (Tilakdhari Ram v. State of U.P. & others) challenging the appellate order. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy as the petitioner had statutory remedy under Rule 13 of Rules, 1999. A copy of the said order has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

The petitioner has preferred two Revision on 21.3.2012, before the respondent no.2, which is still pending. Hence, this writ petition with the following relief :-

" a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the revisions dated 21.3.2012 of the petitioner pending before the respondent no.2 (the Secretary (Finance and Revenue) Govt. of U.P. Lucknow) under Rule 13 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 forthwith."

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for the last three years the revision is pending, however, no decision has been taken by the State Government, therefore, the petitioner has no other option except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that under Rule 13 of Rules, 1999 no limitation is provided to decide the revision.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

It is a common experience that this Court is flooded with spate of writ petitions seeking similar directions upon the authorities to expedite the Appeal/Revision and Review pending before the Administrative Officer/Quasi Judicial Official/Tribunals. This Court has taken a view in Writ-C No. 3628 of 2014 (Rehan Rasheed Khan v. State of U.P. And others) that Court should not be used as a machinery for a direction to expedite matters pending consideration before the Administrative Officers/Sub-ordinate courts/Tribunals. This view has been affirmed in Special Appeal No. 200 of 2014 (Rehan Rasheed Khan v. State of U.P. And others). The observation in the Special Appeal reads as under:-

"....The writ petition filed by the petitioner giving rise to this special appeal was dismissed on the ground that there is no need to pass ay (sic) order nor the Court should be used as machinery to expedite the matter.

We agree with the observations of learned Single Judge....."

However, this Court is already overburdened with the huge pendency of case on account of inaction on the part of the Administrative Officers and Tribunals by not deciding the matter expeditiously. Thus leaving the parties remediless and they are left with no other remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It is trite law that where the limitation is not provided under the Act or the Statutes then the authority/Tribunal had to decide the matter within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sahu v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 704 at page 715, has observed as under :-

"32.We may observe that an appropriate order should be passed within a reasonable period. Normally, three months' notice is required to be given as the said period is considered to be reasonable and it is expected that a decision would be taken within the said period. But the rule is not an inflexible one. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case."

The records reveals that the District Magistrate, Azamgarh has sent his comments on 27.5.2013 to the State Government. A copy of the comments sent to the State Government in the said Revision of the petitioner is on the record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

Regards being had to the fact that Uttar Pradesh Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2011 (U.P.Act No. 3 of 2011) (for short Act No. 3 of 2011) has been enacted for providing time limit for delivery of public services within stipulated time framed and for fixing the responsibility of the officers to pass the order within time framed mentioned under section 3 of the Act No. 3 of 2011.Section 3 has notified several services, its designated officers wherein for each public service like Caste Certificate, Income Certificate, Domicile Certificate, Uncontested Mutation of land, Kisan Bahi, Water Supply, Birth Death Certificate by Nagar Nigam, Medical and Health Certificate and Food and Civil Supply have been mentioned. It is also notified that in case within stipulated period the designated officer fails to pass the order then a First Appeal, Second Appeal is also provided before the District Magistrate and the Commissioner.

Under Section 7 of the Act No. 3 of 2011, penalty is also provided against the officers who fails to pass the order within time scheduled. The penalty is at the rate of Rs.250 rupees per day for such delay on the designated officer, which shall not be more than 5000 rupees. Section 7 of the Act No. 3 of 2011 is extracted hereunder:-

"7. Penalty.- (1) (a) Where the second Appellate Authority is of the opinion that the designated officer has failed to provide service without sufficient and reasonable cause, then he may impose lump sum penalty which shall not be less than 500 rupees and not more than 5000 rupees.

(b) Where the second Appellate Authority is of the opinion that the designated officer has cause delay in providing the service, then he may impose a penalty at the rate of 250 rupees per day for such delay on the designated officer, which shall not be more than 5000 rupees;

Provided that the designated officer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him.

(2)Where the second Appellate Authority is of the opinion that the first appeal officer has failed to decide the appeal within the stipulated time limit without any sufficient and reasonable cause, then he may impose a penalty on first appeal officer which shall not be less than 500 rupees and not more than 5000 rupees.:

Provided that the first appeal officer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him.

(3) The second Appellate Authority may order to give such amount as compensation to the appellant from the penalty imposed under sub-section (1) or (2) or both, as the case may be, which shall not exceed to the imposed penalty.

(4) The second Appellate Authority, if it is satisfied that the designated officer or the first appeal officer has failed to discharge the duties assigned to him under this Act without sufficient and reasonable cause, may recommend disciplinary action against him under the service rules applicable to him."

From the Scheduled of the Act No. 3 of 2011, it is evident that 30 to 40 days time has been fixed for the decision by the appropriate authority including the District Magistrate. In the matters where District Magistrate is second appellate authority, he has to pass the order within 30 days, failing which the Commissioner can impose penalty on the First Appellate Authority (in some cases District Magistrate) between 500 to 5000 rupees per day.

The Scheme of Act No. 3 of 2011, indicates that it is the intention of the Legislature that in the matter of public services the citizen should not be made to suffer on account of in action on the part of its officers.

Therefore, in my view, wherever there is a statutory appeal, revision or review and no time framed is prescribed under the statutory rules of the State Government the analogy of the object and reason of the Act No. 3 of 2011, can be applied.

Accordingly, wherever there is no reasonable time fixed in the statutory rules of the State Government the reasonable period as held by the Supreme Court in the Ashok Kumar Sahu's case (supra) should be treated to be three months and in case the officer concerned fails to dispose of the appeal, revision or review within three months of the date of filing of the same the reasons should be recorded by the concerned officer.

The facts of the present case is an illustration as to how a Class-III employee has been compelled to file as many as four writ petitions in this Court for a simple prayer to issue a direction upon the authority concerned to decide his appeal/revision expeditiously.

In view of the above, a direction is issued upon the State Government to decide the revisions of the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations and order writ petition is finally disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 1.9.2015

ssm