Allahabad High Court
The Chairman U.P. Rajya Vidyut ... vs Krishna Mohan on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 146 of 2023
Appellant :- The Chairman U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Lko. And Others
Respondent :- Krishna Mohan
Counsel for Appellant :- Neerav Chitravanshi,Puneet Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard Shri Neeraj Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel representing the sole respondent-petitioner and perused the records available before us on this special appeal.
By instituting the proceedings of this Special Appeal under Chapter- VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the appellants-Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') seeks to impeach the judgment and order dated 21.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge whereby Writ A No.1121 of 2023 filed by the respondent-petitioner has been allowed and the punishment order has been set aside.
The sole reason indicated by learned Single Judge for quashing the order of punishment as also the appellate order is that the very act on the part of the corporation in issuing the charge sheet to the respondent was in violation of paragraph 351-A of Civil Services Regulations.
After quoting paragraph 351-A of Civil Services Regulations, learned Single Judge has noticed that the charges leveled against the respondent-petitioner related to the incident which had taken place more than four years before the institution of the departmental proceedings.
We have perused the charge sheet dated 25.02.2021 issued to the respondent and what we find is that all the four charges relate to issuance of Office Memorandum dated 20.04.2017 which was issued by the respondent. Issuance of this very Office Memorandum dated 20.04.2017 is the basis of the charges in the charge sheet and admittedly, this Office Memorandum dated 20.04.2017 was issued by the respondent for purchase of Hydraulic Crane which allegedly was not in conformity with the orders of the higher authorities.
Thus, the event in relation to which charge sheet dated 25.02.2021 was issued to the respondent, had occurred clearly and unambiguously on 20.04.2017 that is within four years prior to the date of issuance of the charge sheet.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge appears to have misread the event which forms the basis of issuance of charge sheet which had occurred on 20.04.2017 when the respondent issued the office memorandum for purchase of the crane.
In view of the aforesaid, we find that the aforesaid aspects of the matter appear to have lost sight of by the learned Single Judge while passing the order challenged before us.
Accordingly, this special appeal is allowed and the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by learned Singe Judge in Writ A No.1121 of 2023 is hereby set aside. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent submits that apart from the ground that issuance of charge sheet was in violation of para 351-A of Civil Services Regulation, the respondent had taken other grounds while challenging the punishment order by filing the writ petition such as the punishment order was hit by doctrine of double jeopardy and also that the punishment order and the entire proceedings drawn against the respondent were without jurisdiction.
In view of the aforesaid, we restore Writ A No.112 of 2023 on the files of learned Single Judge with a request to learned Single Judge to expedite the proceedings of the said writ petition and decide the same as early as possible.
We also permit the appellants-respondents to file a counter affidavit in the writ petition before learned Single Judge within a period of two weeks. A week's time thereafter shall be available to the learned counsel for the respondent to file rejoinder affidavit and thereafter, the matter shall be heard. We make it clear that in case the appellants do not file counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition within the time period stipulated herein, adverse inference may be drawn against the corporation.
There will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.3.2023
S. Shivhare
