Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy./Secy. ... vs Prakash Chand Srivastava S/O Late ... on 31 March, 2017
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 3 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 1172 of 2009 Petitioner :- State of U.P and others Respondent :- Prakash Chand Srivastava and other Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- B.C.Pandey Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.
1. Punishment of Reprimand as also recovery of Rs. 1,69,646.49 has been set aside by the State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as " Tribunal") vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 288 of 2005. It is stated that Reprimand is not one of the punishments prescribed under Rules and in view of the law laid down in Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P and others, JT (2012) (4) SC 105, such punishment could not have been awarded, therefore, it was void ab initio.
2. So far as the punishment of recovery is concerned, Tribunal has found that though the charge sheet was issued to the claimant-respondent's which he replied but no oral inquiry was conducted by Inquiry Officer and he submitted report pursuant whereto the order of punishment has been passed. When proceedings were initiated with an objective that in case charge is proved, a major penalty is to be imposed, mere fact that ultimately minor penalty was imposed would make no difference and the Inquiry Officer was under obligation to hold oral inquiry and if it was not conducted, it will vitiate the entire proceeding. This aspect has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Vs. U.P.Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Another, 2013(6) ADJ 250 and para 34 of the judgment Court said:
"34. We are clearly of the view that the ultimate result shall not govern the manner of preceding disciplinary proceedings inasmuch as the authorities, if found no proof of serious charges to justify major penalty, therefore, imposed minor penalty, it would not distract from the fact that proceedings were initiated for major penalty and despite denying adequate opportunity to delinquent employee, i.e., by not holding oral inquiry, he was able to show shallowness of charges which satisfy the disciplinary authority that major penalty is not warranted. If adequate opportunity would have been afforded to delinquent employee, he could have demonstrated that no penalty whatsoever is liable to be inflicted upon him, since, the charges in entirety, are baseless etc. It is the inception of proceedings which will govern the manner of disciplinary proceedings to be conducted and not the ultimate result. Therefore, mere fact that lastly only minor penalty could have been inflicted upon petitioner, would not dilute his legal right that disciplinary inquiry when initiated must have been held in conformity with procedure prescribed, attracting provisions, applicable at the inception of inquiry."
4. In view thereof, we do not find any error apparent on the fact of record in the impugned order of Tribunal in this writ petition so as to warrant interference.
5. Writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.
6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 31.3.2017 Pachhere/-