State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Ugrasen Tiwari And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 20029 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Ugrasen Tiwari And Another on 30 May, 2024

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41096-DB
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4335 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- Ugrasen Tiwari And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Shambhoo Sharan Lal Srivastava,Ashish Srivastava,Manish Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

1. Heard Sri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for State-petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 30.01.2024 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No.2789 of 2022.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, what comes out is that though the Reporting Officer gave the entry of 'very good' to the respondent No.1 but the Reviewing Authority downgraded it to 'good' without giving any reasons which was impermissible, however, thereafter when the matter went up to the Accepting Authority, he gave reasons and further downgraded the entry to 'bad'.

4. The Counsel for the respondent, however, says that in support of his report, the Accepting Authority has referred two letters dated 27.04.2019 and 04.09.2019 written by the Executive Engineer whereas, in fact, subsequent to these letters the respondent No.1 submitted his response and explanation to the said Executive Engineer who, then, finding the explanation satisfactory categorised the work and conduct of the respondent No.1 as 'very good' vide his entry dated 30.06.2020 but this aspect has been lost sight of, meaning thereby, the very Officer who had written the said letters and who was the Reporting Authority has categorised his work and conduct as 'very good', therefore, there was no reason for the Accepting Authority to downgrade the same to 'bad'.

5. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the judgement of the Tribunal. Moreover, we find that the Accepting Authority has given the entry after more than two years of the entry given by the Reporting Authority.

6. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 30.5.2024

Shubhankar