Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 30 August, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 153 of 2022
Appellant :- Amit Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gram Vikas Vibhag Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharm Raj Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Order on condonation of delay application
Heard Sri D.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and learned State counsel.
Having regard to the contents of the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that delay has satisfactorily been explained.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.
Order on appeal
Heard Sri D.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and learned State Counsel.
By means of this special appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, a challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 384 of 2022 to the extent that certain observations made by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order dated 06.05.2022 may be expunged for the reason that the same may effect inquiry and thereby cause prejudice to the appellant-petitioner.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner-appellant challenging the order dated 22.06.2020 whereby the contractual services of the petitioner were terminated by Additional District Programme Co-ordinator/ Chief Development Officer, Balrampur. Learned Single Judge while passing the judgement and order under appeal has found that the order dated 22.06.2020 was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant and as such the same resulted in flagrant violence of principle of natural justice. Learned Single Judge has, thus, quashed the order and has further provided that appellant-petitioner will not be entitled to any emoluments w.e.f. 22.06.2020 subject to fresh decision to be taken in the matter. Learned Single Judge has further observed that in case the decision ultimately goes in favour of the appellant-petitioner, then all the consequences shall follow in accordance with law.
Learned counsel representing the appellant-petitioner has stated that learned Single Judge has made certain observations in the penultimate paragraph of the order dated 06.05.2022 which needs to be expunged. He has specifically pointed out that the Court has observed that, "Only because of the order in appeal by the Commissioner, this situation has arisen otherwise there is sufficient material on record on the basis of which the services of the petitioner could have been disengaged".
In respect of the aforesaid observations, which has been extracted in the preceding paragraph, the submission on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that such observation may amount to giving finding which may ultimately affect the appellant-petitioner in the proceeding to be conducted against him.
The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is highly misconceived for the reason that the observations as extracted above, made by learned Single Judge, is followed by another phrase, "but legally, after opportunity of hearing, therefore, this Court will not become a party to scuttling of any such proceeding against him".
In our considered opinion, learned Single Judge has not recorded any conclusive finding about the conduct of the appellant-petitioner. The observations made by learned Single Judge, as has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, is to be read in the context in which it was made. It is to be noticed that said observations were made on a prayer on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that only opportunity may be granted to the respondents and no direction may be given for continuing the proceeding after serving a show cause notice. While rejecting the said prayer, learned Single Judge has given reasons therefore and accordingly observations, as is being apprehended by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, cannot be said to be any conclusive finding.
For the reasons aforesaid, we are satisfied that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is under appeal, does not call for any interference by us.
The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.8.2022
A.Kr*
