Allahabad High Court
Hriday Narayan Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 02 Others on 24 August, 2021
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 69
1. Civil Misc. Review Application No.5 of 2020
IN
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19141 of 2019
Petitioner :- Hriday Narayan Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
CONNECTED WITH
2. Civil Misc. Review Application No.3 of 2021
IN
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21089 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mahendra Tiwari @ Mahendra Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
3. Civil Misc. Review Application No.3 of 2021
IN
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21101 of 2019
Petitioner :- Vishok Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
4. Civil Misc. Review Application No.3 of 2021
IN
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19140 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
5. Civil Misc. Review Application No.3 of 2021
IN
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19148 of 2019
Petitioner :- Raja Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
6. Civil Misc. Review Application No.3 of 2021
IN
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19150 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ram Bali
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
7. Civil Misc. Review Application No.3 of 2021
IN
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 145 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ram Awadh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. All these review applications have been filed seeking review of this Court's order dated 09.12.2020 passed in leading Writ-A No.19141 of 2019 on the following grounds:
a. The Hon'ble Court of Full Bench in the case of Rajveer Singh Home Guard vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (11) ADJ 453 (FB) has decided the issue involved therein, wherein it has been provided that even the Home Guard is not holding a civil post but in view of decision taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Nag vs. General Manager, the Home Guard may also be protected and provided benefits of Article 311 (2) of Constitution of India, which was tested in writ jurisdiction.
b. The impugned order was passed disengaging to the petitioner from service without giving charge sheet or without holding a regular departmental enquiry which is a simplicitor and stigma as without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is violation of principle of natural justice which is clearly held illegal, therefore, the order impugned is not sustained in eyes of law.
c. The order impugned was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing and without issuing any charge sheet or holding any regular inquiry which is unsustainable in eyes of law in light of various judgments including the one rendered in State of U.P. and others vs. Dasrath Singh Parihar and another 2007 All. CJ 1165. In another case being Writ-A No.58540 of 2009 and 4711 of 2020, the Hon'ble Court had granted stay order on 13.11.2009 and 04.02.2020.
d. It is settled law in the case of Arun Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others 2018 (2) ADJ 353, the Hon'ble Court after examining the settled law passed by Hon' Supreme Court and also considered the several Division Bench judgment in similar case that "A Government employee cannot be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank merely on the ground that he has convicted by a court of law thus conviction alone is not enough to punish a government employee but it is conduct of the employee concern, which had led to his conviction on the basis of which the government employee can be punished, hence, order under challenge has been set aside with consequential benefits.
e. The Government order issued earlier had been modified on 22.10.2020 only on the disengagement on lodging of FIR wherein after a enlarged on bail in petty offence, the incumbent should be provided duty.
f. The Hon' Supreme Court in the case of Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471, it had categorically held that in a petty criminal case the appointment of incumbent should be continued until decision of criminal case. In the light of the same, the Hon'ble Court in a case of Sandhya Pandey vs. State of U.P.and others passed in Writ-A No.797 of 2020, had followed the judgment in a case of Home Guard and disposed off the case in terms of law led down. It is also in case of Israr Ali (Home Guard) vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.58540 of 2009 had stayed the impugned termination order in view of settled legal preposition the order impugned is unsustainable in eyes of law and same may be set aside.
3. There are several other grounds taken in the review application but a perusal thereof shows that there is an attempt on the part of petitioners to re-argue the entire case on merits which is not permissible in the garb of review. In Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambai, AIR 2003 SC 2095, the Apex Court has observed about limited scope of judicial intervention at the time of review of the judgment and said:
"The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgement/order cannot be disturbed."
4. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Rehearing of the matter is impermissible in the garb of review. It is an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Court said that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a new. Such powers can be exercised within limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The aforesaid view is reiterated in Inderchand Jain VS. Motilal (2009) 4 SCC 665.
5. In view of above, no ground for review is made out.
6. Accordingly, all review applications are hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021
Ajeet
