Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shamim Ansari vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8171 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohd. Shamim Ansari
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Agricultural Marketing & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Kumar Singh,Baldau Ji Singh,Rajiv Kumar Singh,Rajiv Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ACSC for respondent No.1 and Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 01.02.2021, whereby the punishment has been awarded in conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner.
3. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Secretary Class - I on 06.06.1987. From time to time, he was granted benefit of the post and vide order dated 17.02.2007, he was granted promotion on the post of Deputy Director, Mandi Prishad. The petitioner joined the post of Deputy Director (Administration / Marketing) on 19.02.2007.
4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 02.03.2008 and he was served a charge sheet on 12.08.2008. He requested to the inquiry officer to supply certain documents to submit reply to the charge sheet.
5. The inquiry committee concluded its inquiry and submitted report on 10.07.2009 and thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice on 29.07.2009 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner appeared before the Director, Mandi Parishad for personal hearing.
6. Subsequently, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013. Vide impugned order dated 01.02.2021, the disciplinary authority has awarded certain punishment to the petitioner.
7. Assailing the impugned order, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by respondent No.3 is wholly without jurisdiction. Under Regulation 9 of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (Karamchari evam Adhikari), Niymawali, 1984 it has been provided that in respect of Director and Additional Director (Administration), the competent authority is Board of Directors, therefore, the order passed by the Director awarding punishment to the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2&3 conceded on the point and admitted that under Regulation 9 of Rules of 1984, the disciplinary authority of the post of Deputy Director is Board of Directors.
9. He also pointed out that similar controversy was subject matter of consideration before this court in Writ Petition No.16414 (S/S) of 2019; Hariram Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein the matter for consideration was in respect of order of suspension passed by the Director and not by the Board of Directors, which was finally decided vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2020 holding that in respect of Class-A post, the disciplinary authority is Board of Directors.
10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties on the point of jurisdiction to pass impugned order.
11. To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, Regulation 9 of Rules of 1984 as amended vide notification dated 30.09.2014, is being quoted below:
"In relation to disciplinary proceedings appeals and representations against punishment the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Appeals and disciplinary proceedings) Rules, 1999 applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Board."
12. On its perusal, it is apparent that similar regulation was subject matter of consideration before this Court in the case of Hariram (Supra), wherein this court while entertaining the writ petition has recorded the finding which was affirmed while deciding Writ Petition No.14992 (S/S) of 2019 decided vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2020 in following terms:
"Heard Mr. Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3.
Notices on behalf of opposite party no.4 have already been dispensed with.
Petition was earlier heard at length and the operation of impugned order had been stayed by means of interim order dated 27.05.2019 which is still in operation.
Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submit that all the relevant submissions have already been taken care of in the aforesaid interim order dated 27.05.2019 and that they have nothing more to add to it. As such, it is jointly prayed that the petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid interim order.
In view of joint submission made by learned counsel for parties, writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 03.04.2019, 30.04.2019 and 09.05.2019.
Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed granting liberty to opposite parties to proceed in terms of the interim order 27.05.2019."
13. In view of the above, I am fully satisfied that impugned order dated 01.02.2021 is wholly without jurisdiction and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 is hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
15. However, the competent authority is at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with Rules of 1984.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
Adarsh K Singh
