Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... vs H.C. 810580192 Diwan Shakeen Khan ... on 3 July, 2017
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Ravindra Nath Mishra-Ii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
AFR
Court No. - 3
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 35 of 2014
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Department Lucknow
Respondent :- H.C. 810580192 Diwan Shakeen Khan & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is directed against judgment and order dated 22.02.2013 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 1260 of 2011.
2. Order of minor penalty of Censure passed on 02.02.2011 on the alleged misconduct of absence from duty from 25.03.2010 to 23.07.2010 and appellate order dated 22.03.2011 was challenged before Tribunal in aforesaid Claim Petition which has been allowed by Tribunal by setting aside both the impugned orders basically on the ground that show cause notice was issued to claimant-respondent against which he also submitted reply but without considering reply, order of punishment of Censure was passed.
3. This fact that claimant-respondent's reply was not considered though it was submitted by him could not be disputed by learned Standing Counsel and, therefore, finding of fact recorded by Tribunal on the basis whereof punishment and appellate orders have been set aside cannot be faulted, legally or otherwise. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. However, before parting, it would be appropriate to place on record that in the last several months, since this Court is looking into a large number of writ petitions filed by State of U.P. and its authorities against judgments of State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, in most of the cases we find that punishment orders have been set aside by Tribunal mainly for the reason that either procedure laid down in the Rules has not been properly observed or there is some other serious fault in the conduct of disciplinary inquiry and for that reason, punishment orders have been set aside by Tribunal. In many of the cases, on account of non-observance of mandatory procedure, which is consistent with Article 311(2), to provide adequate opportunity of defence, orders of punishment have to be set aside and guilty persons get advantage of lapses on the part of authorities concerned. This is a serious matter and this Court has an impression that either departmental authorities on account of lack of proper training and ignorance of due procedure commit these kind of lapses or there is some other reason for which, we do not intent to comment at this stage, but we find appropriate to place on record our observations that departmental authorities, who are holding office of such status as they have to act as Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority, such Officers must be given at least some training apprising them about the procedure of departmental inquiry, so that punishment orders are not set aside in such a large number of cases on account of lapses and orders in disciplinary proceedings may be passed properly after observance of statutory rules. In this way, action of interfering with such orders on account of lack of observance of Rules may be minimized.
5. Let this matter be placed before Chief Secretary, State of U.P. and Secretary (Law), State of U.P. as well as Legal Remembrance, State of U.P. for immediate attention and appropriate action without any further delay.
6. A copy of this order shall be made available to learned Standing Counsel and shall also be forwarded by Registry to aforesaid Officers for information and compliance.
7. Subject to the aforesaid observations, writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.7.2017
Shubham
