Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173316
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12349 of 2021
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Dixit,Utkarsh Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard.
2. Instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.05.2021, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
3. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been appointed on contractual basis as Data Entry Operation in the year 2015. His services had been dispensed with vide order dated 26.09.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ-A No.12699 of 2020 in re: Arun vs. State of U.P. and others, and this Court vide order dated 26.03.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-13 to the writ petition, set-aside the order of termination dated 26.09.2020 and relegated the matter to the competent authority to proceed in the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law.
4. Subsequent thereto, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 11.05.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-15 to the writ petition, to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 20.05.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition. The respondents vide impugned order dated 27.05.2021 have rejected the reply of the petitioner and have indicated that the charges levelled against the petitioner are found to be proved and he is not fit to be reinstated in service.
5. Raising a challenge to the order impugned dated 27.05.2021 instant petition has been filed.
6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the judgment of this Court dated 26.03.2021 has attained finality inter-se the parties and the respondents themselves issued a show cause notice to which a detailed reply had been submitted by the petitioner then the respondents were required to consider the reply filed by the petitioner in its entire perspective and could not have rejected the said reply by simply indicating that the reply submitted by the petitioner does not contain sufficient evidence and thereafter have been of the view that the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service.
7. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the reply was submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court consequently the respondents were required to consider the said reply and could not have adopted a shortcut as they have adopted by simply rejecting the reply of the petitioner by not finding it to be containing sufficient evidence and thus it is prayed that the order impugned be set-aside by requiring the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner.
8. Responding to that the argument of learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner being a contractual employee has got no right to the post. It is also argued that the petitioner had been issue a show cause notice in pursuance to the directions issued by the writ Court dated 26.03.2021 and after considering the reply of the petitioner the order impugned has been passed and once the petitioner in the capacity of being a contractual employee has no right to the post and as such no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the respondents while rejecting the reply of the petitioner.
9. However, learned Standing Counsel admits that the order of the writ Court dated 26.03.2021 has attained finality inter-se the parties.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, what emerges is that the petitioner, a contractual employee, though may not have a right to the post yet the respondents had initially dispensed him from service based on an inquiry report vide order dated 26.09.2020. The petitioner had raised a challenge to the said order by filing Writ-A No.12699 of 2020 in re: Arun vs. State of U.P. and others, and this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.03.2021 set-aside the termination order and relegated the matter to the competent authority to proceed with the matter afresh in accordance with law.
11. In pursuance to the said order of the writ Court, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 11.05.2021 to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 20.05.2021. The respondents by means of impugned order dated 27.05.2021 have indicated that the petitioner does not deserve to be reinstated in service and at the same time the respondents have rejected the reply filed by the petitioner by indicating that no sufficient evidence has been led by the petitioner.
12. A perusal of the order impugned dated 27.05.2021 would indicate that the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice has been dealt with in a cavalier manner. Even if the petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of his reply the respondents were duty bound to consider the reply of the petitioner on merits. Even if the petitioner is a contractual employee yet the show cause notice had been issued in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.03.2021 which order has attained finality as such merely indicating that the petitioner in the capacity of being a contractual employee has got no right to the post would be neither here nor there inasmuch as once the judgment has attained finality inter-se the parties the respondents are bound by the same. Consequently, when the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply in pursuance to the show cause notice the respondents were required to deal with the same on merits instead of rejecting the same in a casual manner as has been done while passing the impugned order dated 27.05.2021.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 27.05.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is set-aside. The matter is relegated to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after considering the reply of the petitioner dated 20.05.2021 and considering the earlier judgment of this Court dated 26.03.2021.
14. Let such a decision be taken by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.8.2023
A. Katiyar
