State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And ... vs A.S.I.M Ajay Kumar Shah And Anr.
2024 Latest Caselaw 19025 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And ... vs A.S.I.M Ajay Kumar Shah And Anr. on 24 May, 2024

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39609-DB
 
Court No. - 2
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5549 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Ors.
 
Respondent :- A.S.I.M Ajay Kumar Shah And Anr.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahtab Ahmad
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 1. The same is taken on record.

Heard Shri Shailesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent respondent no. 1.

By means of this writ petition the State has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1254 of 2016; A.S.I.(M) Ajay Kumar Shah Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

The Tribunal has set-aside the order of punishment i.e. censure entry dated 09.10.2015 and the appellate order only on the ground that punishment order is not a reasoned and speaking order. One more reason given therein is that if the claimant S.I.(M) Ajay Kumar Shah has incorrectly fixed the salary, then, this aspect could have been seen by the Drawing and Disbursing Authority but his statement was never recorded. The Tribunal has then referred to certain decisions which requires such order to be a reasoned order and quashed the same.

The learned Standing Counsel for the State says that even if the order of punishment was not a reasoned order, though, it was not so, the Tribunal after quashing the same could have granted liberty to the State to pass a fresh order.

On being confronted with the aforesaid position learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 could not satisfy the Court as to why this liberty should not be granted and the judgment of the Tribunal be modified accordingly looking into the allegations against the respondent-claimant which were of having incorrectly fixed his salary and that of another official and based thereon they have derived undue benefit. Even if the order of punishment was not speaking order the Tribunal should have granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority/ Competent Authority to pass a fresh order.

We accordingly modify the judgment of the Tribunal to the extent that consequent to its order the Competent Authority shall pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to it.

It is ordered accordingly.

The writ petition is allowed in part only to the aforesaid extent.

.

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

Order Date :- 24.5.2024

R.K.P.