Ashok Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 323 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 18
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17075 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Ashok Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

The petitioner in this petition is praying for issuance of a direction upon the District Magistrate/ Collector to decide his appeal which is pending for the last seventeen years.

The petitioner was a Collection Peon in Tehsil Sadar, District Deoria. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. A charge-sheet was served upon him on 16.11.1999. He submitted his reply. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate imposed major penalty against him and reverted the petitioner to his basic pay scale. He further directed that the petitioner would not be paid the salary during suspension period except subsistence allowance. He was censured also.

Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 14.8.2000 to the District Magistrate.

The petitioner is governed under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 hence he preferred an appeal under Rule-11 of the Rules, 1999 to the next higher officer i.e. District Magistrate. When his appeal was not decided by the authority concerned, he has preferred this writ petition for the following relief:

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal of the petitioner against the punishment order dated 15.7.2000 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

At the time of moving of this writ petition, on 24.4.2017 this Court asked the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the District Magistrate and fixed 9.5.2017.

Today, on 9.5.2017, the learned Standing Counsel has produced the instructions received from the District Magistrate, Deoria enclosing a copy of the order disposing of the appeal of the petitioner on 6.5.2017. A copy of the instructions along with the order is taken on record.

The Court is flooded with a spate of the writ petitions of similar nature for the same relief i.e. for direction upon the appellate/ revisional authorities to take decision expeditiously. Although no time limit has been fixed to decide the appeal under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1999 or revision under Rule-13 of the Rules, 1999 but the law is well settled that if no time is prescribed under the Rules then the authority concerned must decide the appeal/ revision within a reasonable time. 

The Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another v. D. Narsing Rao and others, (2015) 3 SCC 695 has held that in case the revision or appeal is not decided within a reasonable time, the relief itself sometimes becomes infructuous and the employee suffers irreversible loss. Relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under:

"31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority."

The words "reasonable time" came to be considered by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (2) ADJ 370 wherein the Court has observed as under:

"14. In addition to the above, the aggrieved Government servant against whom punishment has been awarded, particularly a major punishment, is required to file appeal as this Court ordinarily do not entertain the writ petition if the aggrieved Government servant approaches this Court bypassing the statutory appeal, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In case the appeal is not decided within a reasonable period, not only the Government servant but his whole family is made to suffer especially in case of the major punishment. If the appeal remains pending for a long time, the Government servant and his family is made to suffer without their any fault. The Supreme Court in long line of decisions has established the law that livelihood is a fundamental right and it is protected under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Thus, keeping the appeal/revision pending for unreasonable period violates fundamental right of the employee.

***                                                 ***                                                     ***

***                                                 ***                                                     ***

18. In view of the above, I hold that in the matter of major punishment, the appellate authority should make endeavour to decide the appeal within a reasonable time i.e. three months but it should not be later than six months. In case there is delay beyond six months, the authority concerned would record reasons for the delay occurred...."

Considering the said issue this Court in the case of Tilakdhari Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(10) ADJ 646 has held as under:

"18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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."

As mentioned above, a large number of petitions are filed in this Court for similar prayers in other matters also. It has resulted the High Court being inundated with writ petitions, is facing difficulty to decide important and deserving cases due to paucity of time.

Our only desire is to save the precious judicial time.

If authorities take decision within reasonable time, this Court's precious time can be saved to decide the deserving cases which are becoming infructuous due to efflux of time.

Accordingly, I am of the view that the issue deserves attention of the Chief Secretary to resolve it at administrative level.

The Court expresses its complete trust and faith that the Chief Secretary will endeavour to address the aforesaid issue promptly and in appropriate manner. He shall issue appropriate direction to all the concerned authorities to decide the appeal/ revision within reasonable time in light of the law mentioned above.

A copy of such direction issued by the Chief Secretary be sent to the Registrar General of this Court, who shall place it on the record of this case.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 9.5.2017

Digamber