Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. ... vs Narayan Singh on 22 November, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77301-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11041 of 2024
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko
Respondent :- Narayan Singh
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the State-petitioner.
2. The present petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-
" I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2024 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknobw in Review Petition No. 41 of 2023 titled as State of U.P. Vs. Narayan Singh, contained as annexure no. 1 to this writ petition.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 23.05.2023 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 2374 of 2022, titled as Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P., contained as Annexure no. 2 to this writ petition.
iii) dismiss the Claim Petition No. 2374/2022 titled as Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P., contained as Annexure no. 3 to this writ petition. "
3. By means of the punishment order dated 23.06.2014, the respondent herein on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings was awarded punishment of censure and withholding of two increments temporarily for a period of three years. The respondent chose to file a representation against the order of punishment within the scope of the power of review under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the same was rejected by order dated 26.07.2022 on merit. The respondent in his claim petition filed before the Tribunal had inter-alia averred that the reply filed against the show cause notice was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority at all, as such, the order of punishment was passed without due application of mind.
4. Besides the aforesaid, the procedural irregularities in the course of inquiry were also highlighted and pleaded before the Tribunal in the Claim Petition.
5. The written statement was filed by the State before the Tribunal and on exchange of pleadings, the learned Tribunal having considered all the relevant aspects of the matter finally allowed the Claim Petition with consequential benefits.
6. The learned Tribunal on the application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 23.05.2023 has also recorded detailed reasons to the effect that the judgment rendered by the Tribunal on 23.05.2023 since did not suffer from any error of law, as such, the review application filed by the State-petitioner was liable to be rejected and equally on the ground of limitation within which the review application was not filed. The learned Tribunal has made a passing remark to the point that review application beyond the period of limitation was also not maintainable in absence of any power to condone the delay.
7. At this stage, when the writ petition arising out of the orders aforesaid has come up before us, it is informed that the sole respondent has already retired from service. The consequential benefits as have been ordered to be granted to the respondent are as per Rules. The respondent in the normal course is also stated to have been promoted in the year 2016 and has retired from service. The nature of punishment in the present case is minor which was imposed on account of some administrative lapses, therefore, nothing persuades us for allowing the State to proceed afresh.
8. Under these circumstances, keeping the present petition as pending would serve no purpose. Unless the financial loss is attributed against a public servant, such matters arising out of negligence or administrative lapses deserve to be given a quitus.
9. In the normal course such a writ petition ought not to have been filed by the State but for the reasons best known, the matter has been instituted in a routine manner.
10. On a careful consideration of the impugned judgments herein, we are not persuaded to exercise our extra ordinary powers under writ jurisdiction.
11. Consequently, the writ petition bereft of merit is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024/Ashish
