Allahabad High Court
Surya Narain Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2001556 of 2015
Petitioner :- Surya Narain Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Agriculture Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Verma,Ashish Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
(1) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Surya Narain Singh, challenging the judgment and order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 365 of 2004 : Surya Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the said claim petition.
(2) Heard Shri Ashish Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anand Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/State and perused the impugned judgment as well as material brought on record.
(3) Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/petitioner was appointed as a Peon (Class-IV post) in the Department of Agriculture, State of U.P. in the year 1968. He was involved in a criminal case under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as a consequence of which, he was suspended from service on 09.08.1973. The learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad convicted and sentenced the claimant/ petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 26.04.1974. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal before this Court, wherein initially he was released on bail by means of the order dated 12.07.1974. However, later on, this Court confirmed the aforesaid conviction and sentence of the claimant/petitioner vide judgment and order dated 24.07.1979.
(4) Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.07.1979, the claimant/petitioner surrendered himself before the trial Court on 27.08.1979 and sent him in jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him in pursuance of the aforesaid judgment and orders dated 26.04.1974 and 24.07.1979. However, by means of the order dated 13.07.1988, State Government released the claimant/respondent under the provisions of U.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1938. After release from jail, the claimant/petitioner preferred an application for his reinstatement on 27.09.1988. However, based on the order of his conviction, the claimant/petitioner was dismissed from service by the District Agriculture Officer, Sultanpur vide order dated 14.08.1989. The claimant/petitioner filed claim petition, being Claim Petition No. 316 of 1990 : Surya Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, before the Tribunal, questioning the legality of the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 14.08.1989.
(5) The Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 24.10.1994, allowed the aforesaid claim petition and quashed the order of dismissal dated 14.08.1989 and further directed the District Agriculture Officer, Sultanpur, to make an enquiry in respect of conduct of the claimant/petitioner, which has led to his conviction and thereafter, if the circumstances warrant, to pass the order of dismissal and during the interregnum period, the claimant/petitioner shall be treated under deemed suspension with entitlement to subsistence allowance.
(6) Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.10.1994, the District Agriculture Officer, Sultanpur, again dismissed the claimant/petitioner from service on 28.12.2002. The claimant/respondent, thereafter, preferred Claim Petition No. 365 of 2004 : Surya Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, challenging the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 28.12.2002 as well as the order dated 06.05.2003, by which the Deputy Director, Agriculture (Head Office) directed the Joint Director Agriculture (Prasar), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad to decide the appeal of the petitioner on the basis of Government Order dated 16.10.2002. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by means of the judgment and order dated 15.01.2015, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.
(7) Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of dismissal dated 28.12.2022 was passed in violation of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India as no enquiry was ever conducted in terms of the direction of the Tribunal dated 29.10.1994 passed in Claim Petition No. 316 of 1990 nor a show cause notice was ever issued to him nor the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing and the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim of the petitioner.
(8) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the appointing authority of the petitioner is Deputy Director, Agriculture, Faizabad Region, Faizabad, whereas the order of dismissal dated 28.12.2002 has been passed by District Agriculture Officer, Sultanpur, who is junior to the appointing authority, hence the order of dismissal is illegal. His submission is that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, has not appropriately appreciated the facts of the case.
(9) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 29.10.1994 passed in Claim Petition No. 316 of 1990, the conduct of the petitioner was thoroughly enquired into by the Joint Director, Agriculture (Parsar), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and after considering all the records as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner, the Joint Director submitted a detailed report to the Director, Agriculure, who, after receipt thereof, forwarded it to the State Government for its consideration and for giving suitable directions. The State Government, thereafter, sought opinion from the Law Department and on the basis of the opinion of the Law Department as well as on the basis of thorough consideration of records, the Joint Secretary, Agriculture has passed the order dated 16.10.2022, directing that the petitioner should not be restored in the services. Therefore, the plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was dismissed by the District Agriculture Officer without conducting any enquiry, is misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
(10) The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted the order of dismissal has been passed by the District Agriculture Officer, Faizabad in compliance of the order dated 09.12.2002 passed by the Joint Director, Agriculture (Prasar), which has been passed in pursuance of Government Order dated 16.10.2002. However, the aforesaid order dated 09.12.2002 and Government Order dated 16.10.2002, on the basis of which the petitioner was dismissed from service, had not been challenged by the petitioner in Claim Petition No. 365 of 2004, hence the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the consequential order i.e. the order of dismissal dated 28.12.2002 is also misconceived.
(11) We have examined the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as material brought on record.
(12) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the Agriculture Department in the year 1968. The petitioner was convicted in a criminal case lodged against him for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 302 I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 26.04.1974 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad. Aggrieved by his conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court and vide judgment and order dated 24.07.1979, this Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the aforesaid conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court.
(13) It appears that the State Government had released the claimant/petitioner under the provisions of U.P. Prisoners' Release On Probation Act, 1938. After release, the petitioner preferred a representation, claiming his reinstatement in service, which was considered by the District Agriculture Officer, Sultanpur and vide order dated 14.08.1989, the petitioner was dismissed from service. This order of dismissal dated 14.08.1989 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Claim Petition No. 316 of 1990 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 29.10.1994, allowed the aforesaid claim petition and quashed the order of dismissal dated 14.08.1989 and further directed to make an enquiry in respect of the conduct of the petitioner.
(14) It transpires from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal found that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.10.1994, the Director of Agriculture had referred the matter to the State Government vide letter dated 16.07.2002 and the State Government, vide letter dated 16.10.2002, considered the matter and issued direction that as the petitioner is a convicted person and his conduct was such as to require dismissal from the services and he could not be reinstated. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the State Government as well as direction of the Deputy Director, Agriculture Faizabad Region, Faizabad, the District Agriculture Officer passed the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 28.12.2002. In these backgrounds, the Tribunal, after noting the facts that decision for dismissal of the petitioner was taken at the level of State Government, rejected the plea of the petitioner that dismissal order dated 28.12.2002 was passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. It also transpires that the Tribunal, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel : 1985 (3) SCC 398 and noting the facts that the enquiry into the conduct of the government servant has to be done by the disciplinary authority by itself, opined that the petitioner is not entitled to any show cause notice or opportunity to clarify his position.
(15) So far as the plea of the petitioner to quash the order dated 06.05.2003, by which Deputy Director, Agriculture (Head Office) directed the Joint Director Agriculture (Prasar), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad to decide the appeal of the petitioner on the basis of the Government Order dated 16.10.2002, the Tribunal had recorded that the order dated 06.05.2003 is an internal correspondence between the Deputy Director, Agriculture (Head Office), U.P. and the Joint Director, Agriculture (Prasad), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and the same is not a final order, therefore, the same cannot be challenged in the claim petition.
(16) On due consideration, we are of the view that the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact on the basis of cogent material on records, which, in our view, are sound reasons for dismissing the claim petition preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse or contrary to the material on record. It is settled law that the findings of fact cannot be upset unless perversity is shown.
(17) Learned Counsel for the petitioner fails to show any perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.
(18) For the reasons aforesaid, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
(19) The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 23.1.2023
Ajit/-
