Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. ... vs Dheeraj Kumar And Anr. on 28 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10726 of 2020
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Home And Ors.
Respondent :- Dheeraj Kumar And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-petitioners and Shri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -State of U.P. challenging the judgment and order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal allowing Claim Petition No.1011 of 2016, which was filed by respondent no.1.
3. The aforesaid claim petition was filed pleading that the respondent no.1 was appointed on the post of Constable in the year 2011. The respondent no.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste category and prior to his appointment as Constable he was married to Smt. Girja Devi. However, the marriage was dissolved as per customs of the community and in the year 2013, the respondent no.1 married to a fellow Constable Madhu. Smt. Girja Devi lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No.123 of 2014, under Sections 494, 498-A, 504, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Police Station Hazratganj. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by means of order dated 03.04.2014 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. On 05.07.2014 a charge sheet was issued to respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 submitted his reply on 19.07.2014 and he requested for staying the disciplinary proceedings till the decision of the Criminal case. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 was reinstated in his service. A show cause notice was issued to him, to which he submitted a reply on 14.11.2015, denying the allegations. On 18.11.2015, an order was passed whereby the respondent no.1 was dismissed from service. An appeal filed by respondent no.1 was also rejected by means of order dated 02.05.2016. The respondent no.1 filed the claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal challenging the punishment order as well as the appellate order. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition and set aside the punishment order as well as the appellate order and provided that the respondent no.1 should be reinstated in his service forthwith. The petitioners/opposite parties in claim petition were directed to initiate a fresh enquiry by issuing a charge sheet with specific charge and conclude the same within a period of six months.
4. While assailing the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that while giving the opportunity to the petitioner to initiate a fresh enquiry, the Tribunal ought not to have issued a direction for reinstatement of respondent no.1 in service, rather he ought to have been reinstated under suspension.
5. Shri Nag has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar etc., 1993 (4) SCC 727, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "where a Court/Tribunal set asides the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/ management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report".
6. The aforesaid decision of Managing Direction ECIL (supra) had been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hiran Mayee Bhattacharya Vs. Secretary S.M. School for Girls, 2002 (10) SCC 293 and in Union of India Vs. Y.S. Sadhu, AIR 2009 SC 161.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL (supra), we are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in directing reinstatement of the respondent no.1 in service. Accordingly, without interfering with the other directions, issued by the Public Service Tribunal, the direction issued for reinstatement of the respondent no.1 in service is modified and it is provided that the respondent no.1 shall be reinstated and placed under suspension.
8. Accordingly, the instant special appeal is allowed in part.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 28.01.2023
Anand Sri./-
