Allahabad High Court
Jawahar Lal vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6353 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jawahar Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar,Alok Kumar Srivastava,Neetu Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing counsel for the State respondents.
1. Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 07-10-2020 passed by the respondent no. 3- Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Etah, whereby the respondent authority withheld the one increment from future target and granted the adverse entry in the service record of the petitioner, as well as the impugned Enquiry Report dated 28-02-2020 prepared by the respondent no. 5- Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Etah.
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to remove the adverse entry made in the character register/ service book of the petitioner."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that after culmination of the proper disciplinary proceedings as initiated against the petitioner order of punishment in shape of stoppage of two increments was awarded for future. Having being aggrieved with the punishment, petitioner preferred the representation before the respondent no. 2.
3. Per contra, learned Standing counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition on the ground that the provision mentioned in the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, it is the crystal clear provision available under Rule 11 for challenging the order of punishment if passed against any Government servant of State of U.P. to prefer an appeal within 30 days.
4. The argument as raised by learned Standing counsel seems to be forceful and covered with the statutory provisions available to the petitioner. Under some mis-conception in spite of filing the appeal the representation has been preferred and as such the petitioner is hereby directed to prefer an appeal within next two weeks.
5. If the appeal as mentioned above shall be preferred by the petitioner the same is hereby directed to be decided within two months thereafter.
6. However, it is made clear that the delay occurred in filing the appeal may not be considered since the representation has already been preferred by the petitioner and the same is covered in the period which has been declared to be condoned by the Hon'ble Apex Court because of the pandemic i.e. Covid 19. This observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 decided vide order dated 10.1.2022 was also followed by Hon'ble High Court in judgment dated 23.2.2023 passed in Arbitration Case No. 100 of 2022.
7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the respondent no. 2 (District Magistrate/ District Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Etah) is hereby directed to finalise the proceedings within the stipulated time as granted above.
8. Writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.5.2023
Shaswat
