Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 16776 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shikhar Anand
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Notices on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, while on behalf of respondent no. 4, notice has been accepted by Mr. Shikhar Ananad, Advocate.
2. Heard.
3. This writ petition has been filed, seeking following reliefs:-
i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing adverse portion of judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition no.2160 of 2017 Ashok Kumar Srivastava v. State of UP & Others dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure 3) and Review Petition no.52 of 2020 Ashok Kumar Srivastava v. State of UP & Others dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure 5) and direct the Respondents not to initiate any fresh disciplinary enquiry proceeding against the petitioner.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits according to law, as a result of quashing of the punishment order dated 24.10.2001 and the appellate order dated 19.08.2017.
iii. award the cost of the petitioner.
iv. any other......... proper in the ends of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned State Public Services Tribunal has grossly erred in directing to hold a fresh inquiry, giving proper opportunity to the petitioner by adopting procedure under Rule-7 (vii) of The U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is submitted that the review application preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected vide order dated 12.03.2021.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and gone through the record.
6. We are of the considered view that the claim petition, preferred by the petitioner, was allowed on technical grounds as learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that proper disciplinary proceedings had not been held.
7. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, has ordered to hold an inquiry in accordance with law. It is not a case of initiation of the inquiry after retirement of the petitioner, after eight years, as alleged or otherwise. The review application has rightly been rejected.
8. Hence, this writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
[D.K. Singh, J.] [R.R. Awasthi, J.]
Order Date :- 5.8.2021MVS/-
