State Of U.P Thru.Prin.Secy.Home ... vs Umesh Kumar Yadav & Anr.
2017 Latest Caselaw 4039 ALL

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 4039 ALL
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2017

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P Thru.Prin.Secy.Home ... vs Umesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. on 6 September, 2017

Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Ravindra Nath Mishra-Ii




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 18022 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- State of U.P. and others 
 
Respondent :- Umesh Kumar Yadav and another 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.

1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioners and perused the record.

2. The writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 24.12.2015 passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 720 of 2012 whereby Tribunal has set aside punishment, appellate and revisional orders. Tribunal has found that preliminary inquiry report was relied by disciplinary authority for imposing punishment upon delinquent employee but copy thereof was never supplied to claimant-respondent.

3. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that copy of preliminary inquiry report was not supplied to claimant-respondent though it was relied by disciplinary authority but he argued that when order of punishment was set aside by Tribunal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, Tribunal ought to have given liberty to proceed further in the matter after giving due opportunity to claimant-respondent.

4. However, we are not impressed with the argument inasmuch in our view for this purpose no such order is required to be passed by Tribunal since it is always open to employer to proceed with the matter afresh or further when an order of punishment has been set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice unless such action is prohibited by some statute or otherwise barred by any specific order of appropriate Forum. Therefore, for mere fact that Tribunal has not given such liberty, judgment of Tribunal impugned in this writ petition cannot be said faulty in any manner. We therefore do not find any manifest error or error apparent on the face of record so as to warrant interference.

5. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.9.2017