Allahabad High Court
U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Thru. ... vs Mahesh Kumar on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 15609 of 2021
Petitioner :- U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Thru. Chairman & M.D. & Ors.
Respondent :- Mahesh Kumar
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neerav Chitravanshi
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Neerav Chintravanshi, learned counsel for petitioners.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10th February, 2021 passed in Claim Petition No. 1537 of 2013.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the claim petition holding that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have issued a notice to the respondent communicating the reasons for disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Committee but in the case in hand the Disciplinary Authority had not issued any notice regarding the disagreement requiring the respondent to file his reply on the point of disagreement. The said action on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is in violation of Rule 9(2) of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as well as the law propounded by the Apex Court and the High Court. It is submitted that a notice dated 31.03.20211 was issued to the respondent calling upon his reply. In the said notice, it was clearly provided that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the enquiry report and the point of disagreement was also mentioned.
Learned counsel for petitioners, in addition to the above, has also submitted that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in considering the claim petition within the period of limitation as well as has wrongly held that the power of delegation under Rule 351-A Civil Service Service Regulation could not have been exercised by the Board of Directors.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and gone through the record.
So far as the first submission is concerned, we have perused the notice dated 31.03.2011, copy of which is at Page No. 101 of the paper book, it clearly indicates that it is the second show cause notice pertaining to the proposed punishment to the delinquent employee. This notice cannot be taken to be notice on the point of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the Enquiry Officer and, as such, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority has not issued any notice regarding disagreement and the respondent was not provided an opportunity on the point of disagreement.
So far as other argument with respect to the period of limitation is concerned, suffice is to note that the learned Tribunal in paragraph 42 of the impugned judgment has observed that the limitation has to be counted from the date of order passed by the Chairman. Thus, the appeal was filed within time, as such, the Claim Petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. We do not find any infirmity with such findings of the learned Tribunal.
So far as other submission with respect to delegation of power is concerned, we do not find it necessary to decide the said issue at this stage when we have come to conclusion that the respondent was not given an opportunity on the point of disagreement and no notice was issued, as such, the entire disciplinary proceedings were bad in law.
The writ petition as such lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.]
Order Date :- 26.7.2021
Santosh/-
