Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru Ron.Secy. Minor ... vs Trilok Chandra Sharma on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 258 of 2020
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru Ron.Secy. Minor Irrigation Lucknow And Anr
Respondent :- Trilok Chandra Sharma
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi
Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
(C.M. Application No.58597/2020)
Having regard to the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the delay in preferring this special appeal has sufficiently been explained.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in preferring the special appeal is hereby condoned.
(Order on Appeal)
Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav Warsi, learned counsel for the appellants-State-authorities and Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
By means of this special appeal the judgment and order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.18243 (S/S) of 2019 has been challenged. By the said order dated 19.10.2019 the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and the punishment order dated 06.06.2019 whereby the recovery of an amount of Rs.8,09066.75/- was ordered, has been quashed.
The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants-State authorities is that in case the learned Single Judge has found the enquiry to be vitiated, learned Single Judge ought to have provided the opportunity to the appellants-State authorities to conduct the enquiry from the stage it was found to be vitiated.
When we peruse the judgment and order dated 19.10.2019, what we find is that the learned Single Judge has set aside the punishment order primarily on the ground that during the course of enquiry, no date, time and place for enquiry was fixed; neither any witness was produced for proving the documents on which the appellants had relied. However, while setting aside the punishment order learned Single Judge has not left it open to the appellants-State authorities to conduct the enquiry from the stage it was found to be vitiated.
Learned counsel representing the respondents has submitted that the charges against the petitioner relate to the year 2006 and the petitioner has retired in the year 2017. It has further been argued that the enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner only about 12 days prior to his retirement in respect of old and stale charges pertaining to the year 2006 and hence the State-authorities ought not to be permitted to conduct the enquiry as is being prayed for by the appellants.
It is true that the learned Single Judge has quashed the order of punishment on the ground, as aforesaid, that no date, time and place for enquiry was fixed, neither any witness was examined for proving the documents relied upon by the appellants-State authorities to bring home the charges against the respondent, however, since the punishment order has been quashed on account of the aforesaid lacuna in the enquiry proceedings, in our considered opinion, the opportunity to the employer to conduct the enquiry from the stage it was found to be vitiated ought to have been given.
So far as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the charges against the respondents are old and stale is concerned, we may notice that at any stage the respondent had not challenged initiation of enquiry and submitted to the enquiry proceedings, hence the aforesaid ground is not available to the respondent to deny the appellant to conduct the enquiry from the stage it has been found to be vitiated.
Accordingly, this special appeal is finally disposed of with liberty to the appellant-State-authorities to conduct the enquiry against the respondent from the stage it has been found to be vitiated by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 19.10.2019.
We further direct that if the enquiry is conducted by the appellants-State-authorities, the same shall be concluded within two months from today. We may make it clear that considering the old age and ill health of the respondent, no further time shall be available to the State authorities to conduct and conclude the enquiry, in any circumstance, whatsoever.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that on account of ill health the respondent is not able to move and he mostly remains bedridden. In these circumstances, we also direct that if any enquiry is to be conducted against the respondent by the appellants State authorities, the same shall be conducted at the residence of the respondent and the witnesses, if any, shall also be examined at his residence.
The order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge shall stand modified to the above extent.
Costs made easy.
Order Date :- 18.5.2022
akhilesh/
