Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Awadh Narain Singh on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1099 of 2023
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prison Administration And Reforms Service Civil Sectt. Lko. And Ors
Respondent :- Awadh Narain Singh
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
(1) Heard Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners.
(2) By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- State of Uttar Pradesh has approached this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), allowing the Claim Petition No.367 of 2020, which was filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 24.11.2017, whereby a punishment of stoppage of three annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the respondent, which was modified by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.01.2018, whereby he was punished with stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect.
(3) The Tribunal held that the punishment order dated 24.01.2017 states that the respondent had been held guilty of irregularities on previous occasions also and one he was punished with stoppage of one annual increment for three years with cumulative effect, twice adverse entries were awarded in his grade book and once he had been punished with a Censure Entry, but still he did not make any improvement in his conduct and, therefore, he was being punished with a major penalty by stopping three annual increments with cumulative effect. The Tribunal held that although the respondent had been punished taking into consideration the previous irregularities committed by him, no improvement was being made by him for the show cause of the charge sheet. The Tribunal held that the punishment order, passed on the basis of facts which were not mentioned in the show cause notice, violates the principles of natural justice and was vitiated.
(4) Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since the Tribunal had allowed the Claim Petition on the ground of defect in enquiry, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have remanded the matter for being decided afresh in accordance with law. He has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Chairman, LIC Of India and others vs. A Masilamani; 2013 6 SCC 530 and Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem vs. S. Arichandran; AIR OnLine 2022 SC 291. He has also relied upon a judgment dated 18.05.2022 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.258 of 2020 dated 18.05.2022.
(5) In Chairman, LIC Of India (supra) the Apex Court has held that "it is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same."
(6) However, in the same judgment, the Apex Court has further been pleased to hold that "whether or not the disciplinary authority should be given an opportunity, to complete the enquiry afresh from the point that it stood vitiated, depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus, the court must examine, the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee.".
(7) In Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem (supra), the Apex Court held that "as the order of dismissal has been set aside on the ground that the same was in breach of principles of Natural Justice, the High Court ought to have remitted the case concerned to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and to conclude the same after furnishing a copy of the Inquiry Report to the delinquent and to give opportunity to the delinquent to submit his comments on the Inquiry Officer's Report".
(8) The allegations against the respondent was that while he was posted as Jailer in District Jail, Pratapgarh, certain objectionable items like, two mobiles with sim, one mobile without sim, one mobile with two sims, one mobile charger, three gas lighter, one knife, one chillam, one electric extension board, five topes (bhagaunas), seven spoons, two glasses, some bottles of beer and liquor found in canteen tank, one scissor, 10 grams white powder, cooked rice, cooked gram (chana) and around three kgs of mahua, etc. were recovered. It was alleged that the control of the respondent in the prison was loose.
(9) The respondent submitted a reply stating that a very low number of officers/ employees were posted in District Jail, Pratapgarh compared to the sanctioned strength, which affected the working of the prison. The respondent had sent various letters in this regard to the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police and to Headquarters/ Government from time to time. There was no Deputy Jailer, no Jail Superintendent and 50% of the posts of Jail Wardens were lying vacant.
(10) It is not the case where the punishment of termination or dismissal of a service was imposed on the respondent and he was reinstated in the services on the ground of defect in enquiry, in which case, as per the law laid down, a fresh enquiry is required to be conducted. The petitioner continued to remain in services and the punishment that was imposed by Appellate Authority was merely stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, which has been set aside by the Tribunal.
(11) Further, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the aforesaid factual circumstances, where the only allegation against the applicant/ respondent is that his control over the prison was found to be loose and where his explanation is that there was a highly shortage of officers and staff in jail, the post of Deputy Jailer, Jail Superintendent were lying vacant and about 50% posts of Jail Wardens were also lying vacant, we do not think that holding of an enquiry afresh is necessary.
(12) In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any illegality in the judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow.
(13) The petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 6.2.2023
Arnima
