Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Gulab Chandra Rastogi on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 164 of 2022
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Respondent :- Gulab Chandra Rastogi
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,Shobhit Mohan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Pal Singh
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
(Order on C.M. Application No.01 of 2022- Application for condonation of delay)
1. Heard learned State Counsel representing the appellants - State authorities and Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel representing the sole-respondent.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that delay has sufficiently been explained.
3. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is hereby condoned.
(Order on Special Appeal)
1. Heard learned State Counsel for the appellants and Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel representing the sole-respondent.
2. This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, lays a challenge to the judgement and order dated 05.01.2022 passed by learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A no. 711 of 1997: Gulab Chandra Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. and others, filed by the sole respondent-petitioner has been allowed and the order of punishment of dismissal from service, dated 31.10.1996 has been set aside with a further observation that respondent-petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
3. Learned State Counsel, while emphatically stating that the judgement and order passed by learned Single Judge which is under appeal herein is not sustainable, has submitted that the respondent-petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and further that during all this period that is during the pendency of the writ petition he has not discharged any duties as such to the extent learned Single Judge has observed that he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, the judgement under appeal cannot be sustained. He has also attempted to submit that the opportunity of hearing etc. was provided to the respondent-petitioner and oral enquiry was also held. In his submission, thus, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that this special appeal deserves to be allowed.
4. Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent, has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that no oral enquiry was held and that no evidence relied by the department was proved, cannot be faulted as such findings are clearly borne out from the record. In his submission, he has stated that special appeal deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
5. Having heard the learned counsel representing the respective parties and having gone through the record available before us, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has considered the entire material which was placed before him in the writ petition and thus arrived at categorical finding that no oral enquiry during the course of departmental proceedings, drawn and conducted against the respondent-petitioner, was held. Such finding in our opinion need not be disturbed as we find ourselves in complete agreement with the same.
6. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that having regard to the fact that the respondent-petitioner has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition hence, he may not be entitled for all consequential benefits is concerned, we only provide while ensuring compliance of the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by learned Single Judge the departmental authorities shall consider the claim of consequential benefits in accordance with law, rules, extant policy and relevant Government Orders. It will be well within their discretion, which of course has to be exercised judiciously, to provide benefits to which the respondent-petitioner may be entitled to under the Rules.
7. The judgment and order under appeal, dated 05.01.2022 passed by learned Single Judge is thus modified to the aforesaid extent only.
8. The Special Appeal is thus disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 13.9.2022
Rahul
