Allahabad High Court
Satendra Pal Singh vs The State Of U.P. And Others on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8559 of 2008
Petitioner :- Satendra Pal Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Singh,Amit Saxena,Anil Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5.12.2006 communicated to the petitioner alongwith covering letter dated 26.12.2007 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition);
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages and all consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of salary along with market rate of interest."
Petitioner has claimed himself to be appointed as regular appointee as Constable, however, there is no document annexed along with the writ petition in support of his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not only appointed as a regular appointee but he was granted promotion also and has served about 20 years. However, this submission is not supported by any averment in the writ petition. Neither any date is mentioned about the alleged promotion nor any document is placed on record regarding his regular appointment.
In the counter affidavit, learned Standing Counsel, denied the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner was never promoted and on inquiry, he never submitted any documents. It is only a case of fraud and same be dismissd with cost.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Case of Ashok Kumar Constable No. 506 C.P. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in Writ-A No. 16148 of 2010, decided on 14.11.2013, which is similarly situated to the present case, relevant paragraphs is quoted hereinbelow:
"In the back-drop, it is to be seen that whether impugned order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner after he has put in almost 14 years of service without holding a regular departmental enquiry or without even there being any material to substantiate that he obtained appointment by practising fraud on the basis of forged documents cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny. It may once again be pointed out that neither in the impugned order nor in the counter affidavit, there is even any reference to any material to demonstrate that petitioner had obtained appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents under Dying-in-Harness Rules except for an alleged letter which has also not been produced before this Court wherein it has been mentioned that name of the petitioner finds place in the list of 43 candidates appointed under Dying-in-Harness Rules even though Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Region clearly mentioned that the matter being very old, records are not available.
In the absence of any material or record available with the respondents to demonstrate that petitioner sought appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, his appointment was not liable to be cancelled on surmises and conjectures merely on the basis of an alleged letter that too without holding regular departmental enquiry to prove and establish the guilt."
In the above backdrop, the Court proceeds to consider the rival submissions.
Admittedly, the present petition is silent about date of appointment, nature of appointment and date of promotion. The averment made in the writ petition has been specifically denied by learned Standing Counsel. In the Ashok Kumar (supra), the Court has proceeded on the basis that petitioner was got appointment legally and then come to the conclusion that in the absence of any material or record available with the respondents to demonstrate that petitioner sought appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules and proceeded to allow the writ petition. However, in the present case, the averment made in the writ petition has been specifically denied by learned Standing Counsel in the counter affidavit.
Since, the petitioner has not able to produce any proof or document in regard to nature of appointment and nature of promotion and that the respondents have specifically denied the averment. The Court cannot shut his eyes and put entire burden on the respondents. It appears in Ashok Kumar (supra) such submission was not raised and in the present case, petitioner failed to prove his case in support of his claim and averment that his appointment was regular and he was granted promotion also and, therefore, it would not be a case of reverse burden of proof.
In these circumstances, I do not find that judgment of Ashok Kumar (supra) would help the petitioner.
The writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2022
CS/-
