Allahabad High Court
Vijay Singh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. Thorugh The Secy. ... on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51189
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2000561 of 2003
Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Chauhan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thorugh The Secy. Sports Deptt. Govt. Of U.P.C
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.B.Singh,Akhilesh Kalra,Prashant Chandra,S K Singh Parmar,Vijay Pratap
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an order of reversion dated 28.4.2003 from the post of Director, Sports to the post of Deputy Director, Sports and attaching the said post to Meerut. It has been prayed to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to discharge his duties as Director, Sports and not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Director, Sports.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner passed B.P.Ed. from Jiwaji University, Gwalior. He actively participated in various national and international level sports competitions. He created a new Indian and Asian record in Munich Olympic record. In 1974, Asian games created new Asian record and was declared the best athlete in Asia. In the year 1972, he was awarded 'Arjuna Award', which is highest award in the field of sports in India.
4. In the year 1968, the petitioner was offered a job by TELCO, Jamshedpur as a Charge-man. He was promoted to the post of Supervisor Sports at TELCO in the year 1973. On 1.4.1974, Sports Directorate at U.P. was formed. The Chief Secretary, U.P. wrote a letter to the petitioner, offering him appointment on the post of Deputy Director, Sports in the pay scale of 800-1450 with five increments in advance together with other benefits. He was appointed on 13.3.1975 on the post of Deputy Director, Sports and was posted at Sports Directorate, Lucknow. Later on, the petitioner was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 8.9.1989. He was confirmed on the post of Deputy Director, Sports w.e.f. 1.1.1980. He was granted promotion on the post of Joint Director, Sports on 24.1.1987.
5. On 3.7.1989, he was sent on deputation as Principal, Sports College, Lucknow, which is a superior post. He was granted officiating charge of Director, Sports on 28.2.1990 in addition to the Principal, Sports College. He was posted on 24.1.1991, as Joint Director, Sports at Meerut. He was sent on deputation as Founder Principal, Sports College, Dehradun. Due to retirement of one Anand Shukla on 31.1.999, the petitioner was given officiating charge on 3.2.2000 on the post of Director, Sports.
6. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 10.10.2001 to fill up the post of Director, Sports, in which petitioner's name was considered. He was promoted on the post of Director, Sports, being found suitable in the Departmental Promotion Committee on 8.11.2001. He has been awarded censure entry by the respondent No.2 without any notice on 30.7.2002. On 27.1.2003, he was awarded censure entry by the respondent no.2 without giving any opportunity. An enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner in respect of some allegations for which the State Government has dropped the proceeding by order dated 20.5.2000.
7. He was awarded adverse entry in the year 2002-03 on 6.3.2003 with malafide intention by the respondent No.2 just the demote the petitioner, it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner submitted additional reply to the charge sheet, requesting for opportunity to examine certain persons. Vide order dated 28.4.2003, the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Joint Director and the post of Joint Director has been attached to Meerut. In place of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 has been posted who is the enquiry officer against the petitioner. Submission of petitioner's counsel is that the order of reversion has been passed illegally, treating the petitioner on probation period on the post of Director, though the petitioner has already been confirmed in service.
8. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that charge sheet issued to the petitioner was subject matter of challenge in Claim Petition No.565 of 2003, wherein the charge sheet was set aside and quashed by the tribunal vide judgment and order dated 5.1.2005. He submits that no disciplinary proceeding whatsoever has been initiated while passing the order of reversion in respect of the petitioner, therefore, the order is illegal, arbitrary and has no valid sanctity in the eyes of law. Next submission is that there is no rational justification to pass the order of reversion in the case of the petitioner without any basis. He next submits that the order of reversion has been passed without issuing notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. His submission is that the petitioner was made permanent on the post of Director, Sports so there was no justification to treat the petitioner to be working on probation and passing the impugned order in a very haste manner. Last submission is that the petitioner was entitled to be heard while passing the impugned order and without any notice and opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed. It is further stated that the petitioner has been voluntarily retired from service vide order dated 26.12.2006 w.e.f. 31.1.2007.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that as the petitioner was working on probation, therefore, no notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Next submission is that there was no occasion in respect of the person on probation, to give charge sheet or initiate disciplinary proceeding. The order impugned is just and valid and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
11. Having heard the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.
12. On perusal of the record, it is reflected that the petitioner was made confirm on the post of Director, Sports vide order dated 8.9.1989 w.e.f. 1.1.1980, therefore, the submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that he is working on probation, is wholly devoid of merit. Once the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Director, Sports, it was incumbent upon the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceeding or to issue charge sheet before passing the impugned order of reversion. Due to non providing of opportunity of defend his case, the order impugned suffers from apparent illegality and is not sustainable in law.
13. On perusal of the material on record, it is also reflected that the petitioner was not issued charge sheet nor any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated to arrive at the conclusion to revert the petitioner vide order dated 28.4.2003, which suffers from apparent illegality is not sustainable in law.
14. In view of the reasons recorded above, it is apparent that the order has been passed ex parte without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, it is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. However, all consequential benefits shall be provided to the petitioner of the post of Director, Sports.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023 / Gautam
