Allahabad High Court
Mathura Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5324 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mathura Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Manish Jauhari,Ravindra Kumar Singh,Sonika Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri manish Jauhari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.08.20211 passed by respondent no. 3/Divisional Director, Social Forestry Prabhag, Sitapur thereby reducing the promotional pay-scale admissible to the petitioner which was granted to him after completion of 24 years satisfactory services taking into account the punishment and subsequently recovery granted to him on 10.10.2007.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that initially, petitioner was appointed on the post of Dakia in Samajik Vaniki Van Prabhag, Sitapur and subsequently promoted to the post of Van Prasar Karta in the year 1983. Considering his sincere devotional work he was given an additional increment on satisfactory completion of 10 years of services on 18.12.2016.Further in the year, 1997, the petitioner awarded a selection grade on completion of 14 years of satisfactory services and his name also find mention in the seniority-list of the employees working on the post of Van Rakshak /Van Prasar Karta. The petitioner was next entitled for a promotional pay on completion of 24 years of satisfactory services which was duly granted to him on 10.10.2007.
4. Though the order was passed but the benefit of the same was not given to the petitioner and he was constrained to approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2918 (SS) of 2011 claiming promotion to the post of Van Daroga which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Van Daroga.
5. The respondents in compliance to the judgment of this Court instead of considering the petitioner for promotion to the post of Van Daroga proceeded to pass the impugned order thereby reducing the promotional pay-scale granted to him on satisfactory completion of 24 years services by means of order dated 10.10.2007, considering the punishment order dated 16.04.2007.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that punishment order dated 16.04.2007 was never served upon him nor was he aware of conduct of any inquiry proceeding nor was he called upon to answer of any charge and surprisingly on the basis of un-communicated punishment order, the impugned order has been passed reducing his promotional pay-scale.
7. A specific averment in this regard has been made in paragraph No. 16 of the writ petition which has not been denied by the respondents in paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit. It is only in supplementary counter affidavit field by the respondents wherein in paragraph No. 3, it has been mentioned that the order of punishment dated 16.04.2007was awarded to the petitioner due to ignorance of his work and a censure entry was awarded and further that the punishment order was served upon him by the Divisional Forest Officer through Forest Ranger. In these circumstances, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order.
8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that respondents admit that while granting the promotional pay-scale on completion of 24 years of satisfactory services, the punishment order dated 16.04.20047 was not taken into account but soon brought to the knowledge of the competent authority the impugned order has been passed.
9. It has further been stated that the said order has never been challenged by the petitioner and with regard to its service on the petitioner, he relies on the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit.
10. I have heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the record.
11. The petitioner was in fact granted the promotional pay-scale on completion of 24 years satisfactory service on 10.10.2007. It is noticed that prior to passing of the said order, certain disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner culminating the order of censure entry against the petitioner. The said punishment order was not noticed at the time of consideration of the petitioner while granting promotional pay-scale resulting in the order dated 10.10.2007. It is only after period of expiry of 4 years the said order when came to the notice of the respondents that the impugned order has been passed taking into account the said censure entry and also reducing the pay scale of the petitioner and ordering the recovery.
12. It has been submitted by learned counsel for respondent that the order of punishment not having been communicated by the respondents would have no effects, it has no legal existence and could not have been considered by the respondents while passing the said order.
13. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments passed in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others, (2008) 8 SCC 725, Sukhdev singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 9 SCC 566.
14. Considering the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, specially the fact that petitioner has disputed the service of punishment order upon him prior to passing of the order dated 03.08.2011, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to respondent No. 2 to look into the matter specifically the fact as to whether the order of punishment dated 16.04.2007 was ever served upon the petitioner or not. He shall examine the records in this regard and satisfy himself about the services. In case he finds material and he satisfies that the punishment order was served upon petitioner, he shall incorporate the same in his order and in case he finds that there is no material which can indicate that the order was served upon petitioner he shall proceed to grant the benefit to the petitioner as per the order dated 10.10.2007 with regard to promotional pay-scale granted to him on completion of 24 years of service ignoring the order dated 03.08.2011.
15. In light of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 03.08.2011 shall be subject to the orders passed by respondent No. 2.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 25.7.2022
Ravi/
