Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... vs Udham Singh on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 97 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Govt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Respondent :- Udham Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Dharmendra Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
(CMA No. 1 of 2023)
Office has reported a delay of 123 days in preferring the special appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned State counsel, we find that delay has sufficiently been explained.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing special appeal is hereby condoned.
(On memo of appeal)
Heard Sri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel.
The instant special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2022 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No. 14765 of 2019, Udham Singh v. State of UP & Ors.
On 06.03.2018, the Commandant, 11th Battalion, PAC, Sitapur had passed an order providing that the petitioner shall not be paid salary for the period 23.03.2012 to 01.11.2017 during which he had remained out of service but the aforesaid period will be considered for other service benefits like pension/promotion/leave/increment. A representation given by respondent against the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2018 was rejected by means of an order dated 31.10.2018. On 28.08.2018, the Deputy Inspector General, PAC decided the appeal filed by the respondent and he reduced the order of punishment of reverting the respondent to the minimum of pay scale for a period of one year instead of three year. Writ A No. 14765 of 2019 was filed challenging the aforesaid orders.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as a constable, he was dismissed on the charge that he had consumed liquor and had abstained from performing his duty. The respondent challenged the punishment order by filing Writ Petition No. 7026 (S/S) of 2013, which was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 28.08.2017. This Court quashed the punishment order, the appellate order as well as the revisional order and remitted the matter to the Commandant to reconsider the quantum of punishment. It was also provided that the service benefits as well as the back wages to be paid to the respondent shall abide by the fresh orders to be passed.
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 28.08.2017, the respondent was reinstated in service by means of an order dated 02.11.2017.
On 30.11.2017, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent asking him to show cause as to why the punishment of reverting him to the minimum of pay scale for a period of three years be not passed against him under Rule 14(1) r/w Rule 4(1)(a)(iii) of the U.P Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegations levelled against him.
On 15.01.2018, the Commandant passed an order punishing the respondent by reverting him to the minimum of the pay scale for a period of three years. In appeal filed by the respondent against the punishment order, the punishment was reduced to reversion on the minimum of pay scale for the period of one year only.
The Hon'ble Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the aforesaid order. The Hon'ble Single Judge did not interfere with the punishment order dated 28.08.2018. However, the order dated 06.03.2018, whereby the entire back wages for the period from 23.03.2012 to 01.11.2017 have been withheld on the principle of 'no work no pay', has been modified by providing that the respondent shall be granted 50% of the back wages for the period he remained out of service.
The aforesaid order has been passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge taking into consideration the fact that the respondent is in service since the year 1987 and on the date of passing of the order of dismissal he had put in about 15 years of continuous service. This Court had found the removal order to be unsustainable in law and had quashed the same in the previous writ petition. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that the petitioner remained out of service under removal order which has been found to be unsustainable in law.
Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge providing that the respondent shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages for the period he had to remain out of service because of the removal order, which was subsequently quashed by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 28.08.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7026 (S/S) of 2013.
The special appeal is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)
Order Date :- 28.2.2023
Pradeep/-
