Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Vijaya Nand Tiwari on 13 January, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12110 of 2020
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Vijaya Nand Tiwari
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Pranab Kumar Ganguli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 01.05.2019 passed by State Public Service Tribunal. The non-petitioner/ delinquent preferred a claim petition to challenge the order of punishment. The order of punishment has been quashed by the Tribunal finding violation of rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999 (for short "Rules of 1999"). The violation was made despite the fact that earlier also the Tribunal caused interference the order the punishment with liberty to the State to proceed with the enquiry again. When the enquiry was again taken up, oral evidence to prove the charges were not laid though required as per the Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999. The Tribunal has given other reasons as well for quashing the order of punishment with back wages to the extent of 50%.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has failed to justify the action of the enquiry officer in not following the Rule 7 of Rules of 1999.
In view of above, the Tribunal has not erred in causing interference in the order of punishment and allowed back wages to the extent of 50% only. The consequence of quashing of the order of punishment may result in full back wages whereas only 50% has been awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, we do not find any illegality in award of back wages to the extent of 50%.
We find no reason to cause interference in the judgment passed by the Tribunal and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to indicate that time and again Tribunal is causing interference in the order of punishment finding violation of Rule 7 (vii) of the Rules of 1999.
Rule 7 (vii) of the Rules of 1999 provides for oral evidence and invariably not followed in the enquiry despite catena of judgments of this Court causing interference the order of punishment. The violation of the Rule 7 (vii) of the Rules of 1999 results not only interference of order of punishment but financial burden on the Government in shape of back wages.
The Chief Secretary, State of U.P. is directed to look into the matter and appropriately direct the Secretaries of concerned departments to ensure that enquiry is conducted after observing Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 in strict terms and more specially to lead oral evidence to prove the charges.
Necessary direction in compliance of this order would be issued by office of Chief Secretary, State of U.P. with an information to this Court in reference to the present order.
The registry is directed to send the copy of this order to Chief Secretary, State of U.P. for compliance within a period of one month from the date of its receipt.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021
V.S.Singh
