Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 10 August, 2021
Bench: Rajan Roy, Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 17158 of 2021
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jageshwari Prasad Mathur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 28.1.2020 passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No. 115 of 2020.
Before the Tribunal orders which were under challenge were dated 31.8.2006, 28.3.2007 and 17.10.2019. Order dated 31.8.2006 was an order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner. The order dated 28.3.2007 was the appellate order. Order dated 17.10.2019 which has not been filed by the petitioner was an order passed on the representation of the petitioner dated 20.6.2019, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. As regards the punishment order dated 31.8.2006 is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the punishment was imposed independent of the criminal proceedings which were undertaken against the petitioner and, therefore, no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner for filing the claim petition belatedly in 2020 against the said order dated 31.8.2006. Consequently, it has held the petition to be barred by limitation as prescribed in section-5(1)(b)(ii) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act 1976. For the same reason the claim petition was also barred with regard to the challenge to the appellate order dated 28.3.2007, as the petition was filed more than 12 years thereafter, in 2020. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation dated 20.6.2019 was with reference to certain benefits consequential to the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case bearing No. 5413 of 2011 under section 419, 420, 471 and 474 I.P.C. in which the petitioner claims to have been acquitted vide judgment dated 25.5.2019, therefore, he says that this aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the Tribunal.
When we asked learned counsel for the petitioner to show the order dated 17.10.2019, he said that it has not been filed, however, when we perused the representation on which the said order was passed, we find that it speaks of the suspension of the petitioner on 1.2.2006 and his reinstatement on 31.8.2006 while imposing two punishments upon him. From this recital in the representation it is evident that the suspension was in respect to the very proceedings which culminated in the punishment order dated 31.8.2006 which was under challenge before the Tribunal. The said challenge being barred by limitation we do not find any error in the judgment of the Tribunal. It being so we are unable to accept the contention of Sri Mathur that the benefits consequential to his acquittal in criminal case had wrongly been denied as in the representation there is no independent prayer of any such consequential benefit independent of the punishment order dated 31.8.2006. For these reasons we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal impugned before us. We, however, make it clear that if there are any benefits payable to the petitioner, independent of the punishment order dated 31.8.2007 and the appellate order dated 28.3.2007 which have attained finality, then, it shall be open for the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, who shall look into the matter, but he cannot claim any benefit contrary to the aforesaid punishment order and the judgment of the Tribunal.
Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed.
.
(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)
Order Date :- 10.8.2021
A.Nigam
