Allahabad High Court
Lavkush Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 January, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15208 of 2020
Petitioner :- Lavkush Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neelam Pandey,Ashok Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The present writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2020 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. The Reference Petition preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment dated 25.06.2019 has been dismissed.
It is the case where petitioner was served with a charge sheet followed by an enquiry. The enquiry officer did not find charge as proved thus exonerate the petitioner from all the charges. The disciplinary authority, at that stage, issued show cause notice for imposition of minor punishment, though the procedure envisaged under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short "Rules of 1999") does not envisage such a procedure. If disciplinary authority does not remain in agreement with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, it can cause a notice after framing issue of disagreement and it is only after the hearing of delinquent, to pass appropriate order. The procedure aforesaid was not followed rather based on the show cause notice after exoneration of the petitioner in the enquiry, punishment of censor was imposed. The challenge to the order of punishment was not accepted by the Tribunal ignoring the fact that the procedure adopted by the respondent was not in confirmity to the Rules of 1999.
Thus, we find reason to interfere in the order of punishment.
At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel submits that if the order of punishment was passed in violation of Rules of 1999, then while causing interference in the order of punishment, a liberty may be given to the State to proceed in the matter from the stage of submission of enquiry report. If the disciplinary authority find issues of disagreement, then complying the process given under the Rules of 1999, to proceed further.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded to it and submitted that liberty prayed can be granted.
Taking into consideration the facts of this case, we find reason to cause interference in the judgment of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2020 and order of punishment dated 25.06.2019. Both the orders are set aside for the reasons that the respondents failed to adopt the procedure given under Rules of 1999 before imposing punishment of censor. It is however, with liberty that if the State so desires and finds it appropriate, may proceed further from the stage of submission of enquiry report by applying the procedure given under the Rules of 1999.
The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021
Ashish Pd.
