State Of U.P.Through Secy. vs Siya Ram Chaudhary
2022 Latest Caselaw 21372 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2000552 of 2001
 

 
Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.
 
Respondent :- Siya Ram Chaudhary
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard the learned State Counsel representing the petitioners and perused the record available with before us in this writ petition.

This writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 23.08.2000 passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal whereby the Claim Petition No.369/V/1990 filed by the respondent no.1 has been allowed and the order of punishment dated 10.03.1988 and the appellate order dated 05.05.1990 have been set aside.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Public Service Tribunal while disposing of the claim petition did not appreciate the fact that the respondent no.1 was the member of disciplined force and hence for absence from duty he deserves severe punishment. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-State authorities that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that the Appellate Authority/Deputy Inspector General of Police had quashed the order of sanction of leave which was allegedly sanctioned to the respondent no.1 by the Additional Superintendent of Police.

Lastly, it has been argued by the learned State Counsel appearing for the petitioners that Public Service Tribunal while quashing the orders under challenge therein ought to have granted liberty to the petitioner to pass a fresh order.

We have considered the submission made by learned State Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

The respondent no.1 was charged with the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty and accordingly,departmental proceedings were initiated against him which resulted in order of punishment dated 10.03.1988 whereby respondent no.1 was reverted to his original scale of pay for a period of one year. He challenged the said order of punishment. However, the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by means of order dated 05.05.1990 passed by the appellate authority. These are the two orders which were under challenge before the learned State Public Service Tribunal, which has allowed the claim petition and has quashed the order of punishment dated 10.03.1988 as also the appellate order dated 05.05.1990.

The charge against the respondent no.1 was that he had absented from duty and did not proceed to join at Hardoi pursuant to transfer order. Learned Tribunal has recorded its findings on the basis of material available on record that the respondent no.1 was unwell and he was under medical treatment for the reason that he was suffering from Tuberculosis. This fact was also verified by the Medical Board.

Learned Tribunal while considering the case of both the parties had come to the conclusion that the period during which respondent no.1 is said to have been absent from duty had been ordered to be regularized and accordingly, the punishment could not have been ordered inflicted upon him. It is also to be noticed that the Additional Superintendent of Police had not only regularized the period of absence rather he had sanctioned the leave from 08.07.1986 till 12.12.1987 on payment of full pay.

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid,the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, in our opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is devoid of merit which is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 16.12.2022

dk/