Allahabad High Court
State Of Up Thru ... vs Syed Amjad Husain & Anr. on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 125 of 2021
Appellant :- State Of Up Thru Addl.Chief/Prin.Secy.Information &P.R. &Anr
Respondent :- Syed Amjad Husain & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Mani Tripathi,Ashok Shukla
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on his behalf today in the court, which is taken on record.
It has been reported that the appeal has been filed with delay of 54 days as on the date of filing.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent do not have any objection to the delay being condoned.
In view of aforesaid, delay condonation application (C.M. Application No.36945 of 2021) is allowed.
Delay in filing appeal is condoned and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the instant appeal is being heard on merits at the admission stage itself.
The instant special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020, passed in Writ Petition No.26677 (SS) of 2019; Syed Amjad Husain Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ petition against the punishment order dated 10.09.2019 and the posting order dated 11.09.2019 has been allowed and the orders impugned have been quashed.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing writ petition without considering the fact that a proper departmental enquiry was conducted against the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is submitted that there was no infirmity in the departmental proceedings held against the petitioner and as such the writ petition has been erroneously allowed without considering the aforesaid factors. It is further submitted that the petitioner was found guilty of all the seven charges on the basis of material evidence which were before the enquiry officer and the competent authorities.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 has rebutted the submissions advanced by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants with the submission that the judgment impugned clearly indicates the specific finding that no oral evidence has been examined by the enquiry officer and that the documents relied upon in the enquiry proceedings have not been proved and as such could not have been taken into cognizance. It is further submitted that even otherwise liberty has already been granted to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law if they so desire. In view of aforesaid, it is submitted that there is no error in the judgment impugned.
Having considered the material on record and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge has recorded a specific finding that due procedure as required to be followed in the departmental proceedings has not been followed inasmuch as no oral evidence has been examined by the enquiry officer. The documents relied upon in the proceedings have not been proved and therefore could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been provided against the writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge has specifically recorded a finding that the departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner were in violation of Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to indicate that the finding recorded by learned Single Judge is against the record or is perverse.
We have considered the findings recorded by learned Single Judge and have also perused the enquiry report which is on record, which clearly corroborates the findings recorded by learned Single Judge that the departmental enquiry against the writ petitioner is in violation of the provisions of Rules of 1999.
As such, the present special appeal is not a fit case to grant indulgence specifically when the learned Single Judge has already granted liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law if they so desire.
Consequently, the special appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.3.2021
Ram.
