Rakesh Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P.Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 19023 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rakesh Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P.Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of ... on 24 May, 2024

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39619-DB
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27413 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Rakesh Chaturvedi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Forest Lko. And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Nath Goswami,Bharat Kumar Dixit,Mayur Gautam,Sunit Kumar Mishra,Vandana
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

1. Heard.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow in Claim Petition No.389 of 2006 dismissing the same, as also the subsequent order dated 30.08.2017 passed in Review Petition No.44 of 2017 arising out of Claim Petition No.389 of 2006.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that he does not wish to press the writ petition as regards the merits of the challenge raised in the appellate order dated 25.06.2002, so far as it substituted the punishment of recovery and censure as against the punishment of dismissal imposed vide order dated 30.06.1998 and he confines his relief only to the extent that the said order dated 25.06.2002 does not provide anything for the period the petitioner remained out of service, that is, from 30.06.1998 till his actual reinstatement in pursuance to the appellate order dated 25.06.2002.

4. In this regard, we find that Fundamental Rule 54 of Financial Handbook Volume II to IV deals with a situation where a government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as a result of appeal or review, as is the case here.

5. Having gone through the order dated 25.06.2002, passed by the appellate authority, we do find that while setting aside the dismissal order and substituting the punishment of dismissal for a lesser punishment, that is, recovery of Rs.1,34,312.50/- and censure entry, the appellate authority did not provide anything as to how the period, the petitioner had remained out of job consequent to the dismissal order which was being set aside, would be treated for service and other post retiral benefits.

6. We, therefore, modify the judgment of the Tribunal and direct the appellate authority to take a decision in terms of Fundamental Rule 54 referred herein above and also keeping in mind the observations made herein above. We leave it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application in this regard before the appellate authority, who shall pass requisite order in this regard, in terms of Fundamental Rule 54 and the said order will automatically amount to modification of the order dated 25.06.2002, however, only for the purposes of Fundamental Rule 54 and not for any other purpose, meaning thereby the order already passed with regard to the punishment shall not be reopened.

7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)

Order Date :- 24.5.2024

Arnima