Dr. Anuj Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11770 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1469 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Anuj Pratap Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anupam Dwivedi,Subhash Bisaria
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Four rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the petitioner, which are taken on record.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.01.2022 whereby the petitioner has been repatriated to the department.

The Counsel for the petitioner argues that while passing the order, the reliance has been placed upon some report issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, which was never provided to the petitioner. He argues that stigmatic remarks have been made by the order without giving any opportunity of hearing.

The Counsel for the respondents argues that the petitioner was called for providing the hearing, however, he choose not to appear and thus, there is nothing wrong in the order impugned. He argues that the petitioner has obtained the appointment by placing incorrect and misleading facts which has ultimately led to passing of the impugned order.

The Counsel for the petitioner has places reliance on the following judgments:

"1. Union of India vs. Ram Krishan and others; 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1489;

2. Noorul Huda Vs. State of U.P. & others; 2022 SCC OnLine All 445;

3. Debesh Chandra Das Vs. UOI; (1969) 2 SCC 158;

4. Dev Dutt Vs UOI and others; (2008) 8 SCC 725;

5. D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.; (1993) 3 SCC 259;

6. Harpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another; 1988 UPLBEC 213;

7. K.H. Phadnis Vs. State of Maharashtra; 1971 AIR 998;

8. C. Thiraviam Pilai Vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.; 1975 SCC OnLine Ker 74;

9. Gautam Kumar Paul Vs. Union of India & Ors; 1998 SCC OnLine Cal 349 and

10. Dr. Shree Krishan Vs. Union of India & Ors.; 1989 SCC OnLine All 656."

This Court finds that there is a non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, therefore, this Court has not gone into the cases cited above at this stage by the petitioner.

A perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that one of the documents relied upon while passing the order is the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police.

Considering the fact that the petitioner was never confronted with the said report, I deem it appropriate that the authority concerned, the respondent no.3 should accord post decisional hearing to the petitioner after providing a copy of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police and any other documents that was relied upon against the petitioner. The opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioner before passing any order.

The fresh order shall be passed by the respondent no.3 after complying with the directions as given above.

The parties shall abide by the fresh order that is directed to be passed by the respondent no.3.

To avoid any further delay, it is provided that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.3 on 02.05.2023 at 12:00 noon and the respondent no.3 shall pass an order thereafter after complying with the order as specified above.

While passing the fresh order, the respondent no.3 shall also pass order in respect of the claim of the petitioner for the salary for the period, for which the petitioner had worked.

This order has been passed in the presence of Sri Anupam Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 and Sri Subhash Bisaria, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5.

The writ petition is disposed off.

Order Date :- 19.4.2023

akverma