Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 11101 of 2020
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Dwivedi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Forest & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshemendra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents and also perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for the quashing of the order dated 28.04.2020 by which the sanction under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations had been granted in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition (SS) No.14767 of 2019. Additionally, it has been prayed that the order dated 10.06.2020 by which a fresh charge-sheet had been served upon the petitioner and the order dated 24.06.2020 by which an Enquiry Officer has been appointed be also quashed.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was appointed as a Forest Guard, was served with a charge-sheet dated 27.04.2011 and when an ex-parte enquiry was conducted, a punishment order was passed on 23.12.2011. Thereafter the petitioner filed an Appeal which too when was rejected on 11.05.2012, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition (SS) No.3583 of 2012. This writ petition came to be allowed on 19.04.2017 wherein it was held that when no date, time or place was fixed for the enquiry, the same was erroneous and, therefore, the orders dated 23.12.2011 and 11.05.2011 were set aside and it was left open to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry. When the enquiry was thereafter conducted in pursuance of the earlier charge-sheet dated 27.04.2011 by issuing a show-cause notice dated 30.03.2019 and the enquiry culminated in the order dated 03.05.2019, the petitioner again filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (SS) No.14767 of 2019. This writ petition also came to be allowed on 26.09.2019. The operative portion of the order dated 26.09.2019 is being reproduced hereunder:-
"No chargesheet or documents in support of chargesheet was ever served upon the petitioner in view of judgment and order dated 19.4.2017. Therefore, the inquiry was not held in accordance with law. Thus, the order dated 3.5.2019 cannot stand and is quashed. Since the petitioner has already retired from service hence now, inquiry can be initiated after approval under Regulations 351 of Civil Services Regulations. In case respondents so find appropriate, they are permitted to hold inquiry against the petitioner after obtaining approval under Regulation 351 of Civil Services Regulations within two months from today."
In pursuance of the order dated 26.09.2019, the orders impugned have been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders by saying that under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations the enquiry could have been initiated only on the sanction of the Governor as the petitioner had retired on 31.03.2019 and in view of the fact that the sanction had been granted by the State Government, the sanction became erroneous in the eyes of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of this Court dated 23.07.2021 passed in Writ-A No.6544 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others).
Learned Standing Counsel, however, opposed the prayer and has submitted that the order dated 28.04.2020 was not the last order and in fact a further order was passed by the Special Secretary after obtaining a proper sanction from the Governor and, therefore, the error, if at all was there, had been cured. Learned Standing Counsel also contended that there were certain financial irregularities because of which a disciplinary enquiry was initiated and the enquiry, therefore, should be conducted to find out as to what was the exact nature of loss which had been incurred by the State. This he submits, had been enumerated in paragraph-3(xi) of the counter affidavit.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents, this Court is of the view that the orders dated 28.04.2020 by which sanction was granted and thereafter the consequential orders dated 10.06.2020 and 24.06.2020 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The order dated 26.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition (SS) No.14767 of 2019 was very categorical to the effect that the petitioner had retired and, therefore, if any enquiry had to be conducted, the same could be done only after a proper sanction under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. Since the Court finds that the sanction dated 28.04.2020 was not a sanction by the Governor, therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.
So far as the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel that the order dated 24.09.2020, annexed as Annexure-7 to the counter affidavit, had rectified the mistake is concerned, suffice it to say that the order dated 24.09.2020 was an afterthought and no action had been taken in pursuance thereof and, therefore, it cannot in any manner validate the order dated 28.04.2020.
With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.04.2020 passed by Joint Secretary, State of U.P., the following charge-sheet dated 10.06.2020 issued by Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Nanapara Upvan Division, Bahraich and the order dated 24.06.2020 passed by Inquiry Officer/ Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Nanapara Upvan Division, Bahraich, are set aside. All consequential benefits be provided to the petitioners.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021
Siddhant Sahu
