Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8015 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Rishabh Kesarwani,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.07.2021 giving a minor penalty to the petitioner and also the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by in Appeal by the Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh Range, Azamgarh rejecting his Appeal.
(3) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing a Revision under the Rules of 1991 and thereafter a claim petition under the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976.
(4) The counsel for the petitioner states that the order of punishment being non-speaking and having not considered the reply of the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice, it ought to be interfered with in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment/order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.605 of 2022 [Madhusudan Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others] which is annexed with paper book.
(5) It has been submitted that in similar case, the Court has interfered because the punishment order was non-speaking and quashed the same and remitted the matter to the Authority concerned to consider the petitioner's explanation and pass afresh order thereon.
(6) This Court has considered the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Madhusudan Mishra and finds that this Court has relied upon several such orders namely order passed in Writ-A No.17122 of 2021 [Raghvendra Singh Tomar Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others] and Writ-A No.12622 of 2021 [Shashi Nath Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others] and has observed in such orders the Writ Court had held that a cryptic and skeletal order for punishment cannot be sustained. Since the punishment order was cryptic and skeletal non-speaking order it should be set aside. The Court had also considered the arguments raised by the learned Standing Counsel that the Appellate Authority has given reasons to sustain the order of penalty but the said line of reasoning also could be accepted. As in the first place it remained the duty of the disciplinary authority to consider the allegations made against an employee in the context of the reply submitted thereto, and to record its own conclusions as to fact. Only thereafter the disciplinary authority may choose to award any penalty and leave it open to the Appellate or Higher Authorities to consider if there existed any reason to award such penalty.
(7) It has been observed that the punishment order being completely silent and considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it deserves to be set aside. The Co-ordinate Bench had set aside the punishment order and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass afresh order as aforesaid.
(8) This Court has considered the Co-ordinate Bench decision and also is aware of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1989 (4) SCC 582 where a Seven Judges Constitution Bench has observed that the 'doctrine of merger' would apply if the disciplinary Authority has passed an order which is affirmed in Appeal by a reasoned and speaking order. The order passed in Appeal would be final order passed in the case of the petitioner which employee concerned would thereafter have reason to challenge.
(9) In this case the Court had perused the Appellate order which is a detailed order. The petitioner had given three reasons in his Appeal for setting aside of the Disciplinary Authorities' order. All such arguments have been considered and thereafter the order of minor penalty has been affirmed.
(10) This petition is dismissed on grounds of statutory remedy being available to the petitioner. The petitioner may file a Revision before the ADG, Zone against such order and thereafter approach the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in a claim petition as disputed questions of facts cannot be considered by this Court in Writ jurisdiction.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022/PAL
PAL
