Allahabad High Court
Smt. Karuna Singh vs U.P. Housing And Development ... on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53151-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 402 of 2023
Appellant :- Smt. Karuna Singh
Respondent :- U.P. Housing And Development Board Lko. Thru. Secy. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Anant Khanna,Rani Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Puneet Chandra
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Ms. Rani Singh and Anant Khanna learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Puneet Chandra learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Special Appeal instituted under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules is directed against the judgement/order dated 29.5.2023 rendered in Writ A No. 2000885 of 2023. It appears that the judgement in the case was reserved on 2.11.2022 and the same was pronounced on 29.5.2023.
3. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. We have carefully gone through the judgement impugned herein this Special Appeal and we take note of two specific paragraphs of the impugned judgement i.e. paragraph 17 and 18, which for ready reference are extracted below :-
"17. On overall consideration of the matter as well as on perusal of record and judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is reflected that financial irregularities were found against the petitioner in deposit work done at District Ambedkar Nagar and on the basis of audit report, the inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and relevant documents relating to charges were supplied to the petitioner and a charge sheet containing eight charges was served upon the petitioner and charge Nos.3&6 were found to be proved against the petitioner.
18. Moreover, the petitioner himself accepted the charges against him and made a request that he should be awarded minor punishment, which itself proves that the charges were proved against him. The show cause notice could not be served upon the petitioner as he was not available in his office / residence and his family members have also denied from receiving the same and thereafter, the said notice was published in daily news papers, namely, Dainik Jagran and Times of India on 29.06.2004 for information upon the petitioner".
5. It is clear from a plain reading of the aforesaid paragraphs that the learned Single Judge has proceeded in the matter as if charge nos. 3 and 6 were admitted by the delinquent employee who has since died during pendency of the proceeding and the present appellant is the widow who has taken up the challenge by means of the instant appeal against the judgement/order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is nowhere emerged from any document or reply submitted by the delinquent employee that he had ever admitted any of the charges levelled against him, therefore, the premise of the opinion in the judgement as is reflected from the aforesaid paragraphs is wholly unfounded and the findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, perverse.
7. Sri Punit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out any single document or any statement of the delinquent employee recorded during the course of the inquiry which may indicate the admission of charge nos. 3 and 6 during the course of enquiry proceedings.
8. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit what is stated by the respondents herein in reply to the writ petition is that the delinquent employee had accepted the charge during the course of the inquiry which fact was denied by the delinquent employee in paragraph 13 of the rejoinder affidavit by reiterating the averments made in the writ petition.
9. In absence of any proof or evidence in support of the finding relied upon by the learned Single Judge, we find that the writ court while recording such finding fell in error, therefore, the submissions put-forth by learned counsel for the appellant deserves acceptance.
10. The third submission put-forth by learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the decision making process in the present case was protested for being not in conformity with the Regulation 27 of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants of the Board.
11. The learned Single Judge in the present case has though taken note of the case laws cited by the appellant but consideration thereof in the light of the defence pleaded against the charges remained unconsidered. Hence, the decision making process which ought to have been viewed by the writ court was left untouched. Failure to enter into such an exercise renders the judgement impugned as non-speaking.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents even on this submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is unable to justify as to how the submissions raised against the decision making process is justifiably considered by the writ court. There is no discussion made in the judgement impugned.
13. All the three submissions made before this Court are convincing, therefore, in view of the submissions put-forth by learned counsel for the appellant, it is a fit case for being remitted to the writ court for due consideration of the submissions.
14. We are satisfied that the impugned judgement/order does not sustain in the eye of law and the matter deserves to be remitted to the writ court for decision afresh. The judgement/order impugned is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the writ court for fresh decision. The writ court is requested to decide the matter expeditiously as far as possible.
15. It is made clear that we have not opined anything on the merit of the case
16. The Special Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
kanhaiya
