Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 11 August, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53833
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5940 of 2023
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.K. Bajpayee, learned State Counsel for the opposite parties.
This petition has been filed challenging order dated 17.07.2023 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service in pursuance of an inquiry proceeding. Further prayer for reinstatement of petitioner has been made with consequential benefits.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made twin arguments with first being with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the authority in passing the dismissal order. It is submitted that Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh who has signed the dismissal order indicating himself to be the appointing authority / District Panchayat Raj Officer is in fact an Assistant District Panchayat Raj Officer and has merely been posted as the District Panchayat Raj Officer by means of order dated 30.06.2022 issued by the State Government. It is submitted that since the aforesaid official is only in charge of the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer and is only exercising administrative powers, as such, he cannot pass any punishment orders in pursuance of inquiry proceedings which are quasi-judicial in nature. Therefore, it has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction.
Secondly, it has been submitted that even otherwise, the inquiry proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1999) for not adhering to the to the statutory procedure prescribed.
Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the order dated 30.06.2022 itself authorizes the said person to hold the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer till such time a regular appointment is made. It is submitted that since the said person has been authorized to exercise all powers including administrative powers of the said post, the impugned order does not suffer from the vice of lack of jurisdiction. It has also been submitted that with regard to allegation of inquiry proceedings not being in accordance with law, the petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal before the competent authority.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of material available on record, it is evident that the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 dismissing the petitioner from service has been passed by a person claiming himself to be the appointing authority / District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hardoi. From the order dated 30.06.2022 issued by the State Government, it is evident that the said person is in fact holding a lien on the post of Assistant District Panchayat Raj Officer and has been posted as Panchayat Raj Officer in district, Hardoi in view of vacancy on the said post. He has been authorized to exercise administrative and other powers of the post. It is a relevant fact that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 30.06.2022 whereby the said person has been posted as the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The order dated 30.06.2022 clearly indicates the fact that Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh has been posted as the District Panchayat Raj Officer and has been authorized to perform all administrative and other functions of the said post. The order does not indicate any restriction in the powers to be exercised by him in performance of duties of the said post.
Considering the aforesaid, it is evident that the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from the vice of lack of jurisdiction. The argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner on that account are rejected.
So far as, submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the inquiry proceeding being quasi-judicial in nature were required to be conducted in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, it is evident that the said fact is quite clear from judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Abdul Rehman Dar Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr. It is also a fact that with regard to aforesaid submission the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the competent authority in terms of the Rules, 1999. Since, an inquiry has been conducted and the impugned order has been passed in pursuance thereof, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 11.8.2023/Lokesh Kumar
