Allahabad High Court
Kripal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 January, 2021
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13959 of 2020
Petitioner :- Kripal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner is Village Development Officer posted at Development Block Ganeshwari. It seems that disciplinary proceeding was inititated against the petitioner in which the order of punishment was passed by the District Development Officer, Amroha on 26.12.2019 awarding several punishment to the petitioner. The petitioner inadvertently preferred representation against the order of punishment before Chief Development Officer, Amroha who by the order dated 12.2.2020 rejected the same.
3. The petitioner challenged the order dated 12.2.2020 passed by respondent No. 3-Chief Development Officer, Amroha in Writ A No. 4221 of 2020 (Kripal Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) wherein he conceded that statutory appeal under Rule 11 of U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1999 is provided against the order. This Court by order dated 12.6.2020 in the aforesaid writ petition granted liberty to the petitioner to file appeal under Rule 11 of U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1999 against the order of punishment before the appellate authority. By the said order, this Court also condoned the delay if the appeal is filed within a period of 15 days from the date of judgement.
4. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred statutory appeal within the time prescribed by this Court in judgement and order dated 12.6.2020 before the appellate authority i.e. Chief Development Officer, Amroha. The Chief Development Officer, Amroha by order dated 31.7.2020 instead of deciding the appeal on merit has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that no action is required from the office of Chief Development Officer, Amroha.
5. Counsel for the petitioner by challenging the order dated 31.7.2020 submitted that the Chief Development Officer being the appellate authority should have decided the appeal of the petitioner (annexure-13 to the writ petition) on merits. Thus, he submits that the order impugned is not sustainable as the same is without application of mind and a misappreciation of facts on record.
6. Considering the nature of order being passed in the writ petition, learned Standing Counsel contends that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending. He further submits that the order impugned is just and proper based on appreciation of facts on record.
7. Be that as it may, the petitioner pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Writ A A No. 4221 of 2020 (Kripal Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) preferred statutory appeal challenging the order of punishment on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. At this stage, it would be apt to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 31.7.2020 which reads as under:-
".....vc bl Lrj ls dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh visf{kr ugh gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk tks Hkh vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;sxk og loksZifj gksxk o rnuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA vkidk izR;kosnu fnukad 26-6-2020 fujLr djus ;ksX; gS] tks fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA "
8. The reason in the impugned order as extracted above clearly discloses that the Chief Development Officer, Amorha has failed to understand the distinction between deciding a representation and statutory appeal. The appellate authority-Chief Development Officer, Amroha has not decided the appeal of the petitioner on merit as is evident from the order impugned.
9. Learned Standing Counsel also could not demonstrate from the record that the appeal of the petitioner has been decided on merit. Thus, the order impugned dated 31.7.2020 passed by the Chief Development Officer, Amroha is not sustainable in law and is accordingly set aside.
10. The writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondent No. 3-Chief Development Officer, Amroha to decide the appeal of the petitioner (annexure-13 to the writ petition) expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. In view of the fact that due to the pandemic of COVID-19, the certified copy is not being issued by the High Court, therefore, the order downloaded from the website duly certified by learned counsel for the petitioner may be treated as true copy of the order and the Authority may not refuse to comply the order on the ground of non filing of certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 11.1.2021
Jaswant
