Saurabh Upadhyay vs Honble High Court Allahabad At ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14334 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:31624-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 213 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Saurabh Upadhyay
 
Respondent :- Honble High Court Allahabad At Lko. Thru. Registrar General And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Avinash Chandra,Rahul Chaurasia
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Vijay Dixit
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

(1) Heard Sri Avinash Chandra, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Sri Vijay Dixit, learned Counsel representing the respondents.

(2) This intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Rules of the Court seeks to assail the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No. 543 of 2022 filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging the charge sheet dated 08.11.2021 has been disposed of with certain directions and observations.

(3) Learned Single Judge while passing the order under challenge before us in this Special Appeal, without interfering in the charge sheet which was impugned in the proceedings of the writ petition, has granted fifteen days' time to the appellant-petitioner to file his reply to the charge sheet having observed that relevant part of the preliminary inquiry report has been given to him. Learned Single Judge has further observed that the inquiry officer shall proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law and conclude the same, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. Learned Single Judge also observes in his order that in case the appellant-petitioner does not cooperate in the inquiry, the inquiry officer shall proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law and conclude the same. Further observation of the learned Single Judge is that the appellant-petitioner shall also be given the documents which have been relied upon in support of the charges mentioned in the charge sheet, if the same have already not been provided.

(4) Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the charge sheet is based on an anonymous complaint which has even not been supported by any affidavit. He has further drawn our attention to file notings which are available at page Nos.90 to 92 of Special Appeal, wherein an observation was made that it appeared that it could not be appropriate to initiate further action on the complaint lodged against the appellant-petitioner. The submission, thus, is that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that earlier the proceedings on the basis of the complaint were dropped. On these counts, his submission is that the order of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be sustained.

(5) Per contra, Sri Vijay Dixit, learned Counsel representing the respondents has vehemently argued that in the facts of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is under appeal herein need not be interfered with for the reason that the writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner only challenging the charge sheet and the charge sheet issued in departmental proceedings can be challenged only on limited grounds and the grounds are that (i) the charge sheet is without jurisdiction or (ii) the charges mentioned in the charge sheet do not constitute any misconduct or the charge mentioned therein is attributable to the employee concerned. It has been argued further by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in the facts of the case, the appropriate authority on the basis of material available before him has come to the conclusion that appropriate disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the appellant-petitioner and such satisfaction of the disciplinary authority at this juncture need not be interfered with.

(6) We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel representing rival parties and have also perused the records available before us.

(7) The sheet anchor of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that the respondents have proceeded against the appellant-petitioner and instituted the departmental proceedings on the basis of a preliminary inquiry report which was initiated on the basis of an anonymous complaint which too was not supported by any affidavit. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner on a judgment dated 03.01.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4372 (SS) of 2011, Kumdesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others. His further submission is that once the authorities decided to drop the proceedings against the appellant-petitioner which is apparent from the notings in the file available at page nos.90 to 92 of this Special Appeal, there was no occasion for the respondents to have instituted full-fledged inquiry.

(8) The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner are absolutely misconceived. The purpose of conducting a fact finding inquiry is to enable the competent authority to take a decision as to whether in the facts of a particular matter, the employee concerned needs to be departmentally proceeded against in a full-fledged manner or not. Such satisfaction has to be arrived at by the competent authority in respect of an employee not only on the basis of a fact finding inquiry, rather on the basis of any material which is made available to him irrespective of it's source.

(9) In ideal circumstances, any complaint in respect of alleged misconduct of an employee needs to be supported by an affidavit, however, in even absence of any such affidavit, if the competent authority proceeds to take a decision that the employee concerned has to be proceeded with departmentally in a full-fledged manner on the basis of any material which is otherwise available to him, such a decision cannot be faulted with. It is settled law that the full-fledged departmental proceedings need not necessarily precede any fact finding inquiry. It is the material which may be available before the competent authority which should form the basis of the satisfaction of the competent authority to institute full-fledged departmental proceedings.

(10) Sri Vijay Dixit, learned Counsel representing the respondents has also stated that the file noting available at page Nos.90 to 92 of this Special Appeal was marked by the officer only upto the rank of Senior Registrar, whereas the Disciplinary Authority in the present case is Hon'ble the Chief Justice who has delegated his powers to the Registrar General and accordingly, we agree with the submission made by Sri Vijay Dixit, learned Counsel representing the respondents that the file notings available at page Nos.90 to 92 of the Special Appeal will not bar the appropriate authority to take a decision to institute full-fledged disciplinary proceedings against the appellant-petitioner.

(11) There is yet another aspect of the matter which needs to be noticed. The appellant-petitioner has relied upon the file notings which have been enclosed at page Nos.90 to 92 of the Special Appeal. It is strange to note that no source from where such notings have been obtained by the appellant-petitioner has been disclosed in this Special Appeal; neither was it disclosed in the writ petition. It is not the case of the appellant-petitioner that such notings were obtained by the appellant-petitioner under the Right to Information Act.

(12) On a query, on the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner states that the appellant-petitioner had seen the notings in the original file. Such a statement on behalf of the appellant-petitioner does not justify such an act on his part for the reason that having access to official files unauthorizedly in a matter which directly concerns the appellant-petitioner, cannot be approved of.

(13) Learned Single Judge has thus rightly not interfered with the charge sheet which was challenged before him in the proceedings of the writ petition.

(14) We are thus not persuaded to take any view other than the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

(15) The Special Appeal is highly misconceived, which is hereby dismissed.

(16) Costs made easy.

.

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.]

Order Date :- 8.5.2023

lakshman