Allahabad High Court
Ramrati Bind vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 December, 2020
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12917 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ramrati Bind Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parvesh Kumar Pandey,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner prays with the following relief:
(a) A writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dted 25/26.08.2020 passed by District Programme Coordinator / District Magistrate, Prayagraj (Annexure No. 7).
(b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of State Government dated 07.8.2020 (Annexure No. 6).
At the very outset, statement has been made at bar that on similar set of facts Writ A No. 7618 of 2020 has been allowed by another Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 19.10.2020.
The said fact has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
The order dated 19.10.2020 passed in Writ A No. 7618 of 2020 (Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. State of UP) is quoted herein below:
"Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 25/26.08.2020 passed by the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj as well as the order of the State Government dated 07.08.2020.
The petitioner was appointed on a contract. The order of termination dated 25/26.08.2020 records various financial irregularities committed by the petitioner. It is clearly stigmatic in nature. The order of termination further references the direction of the State Government dated 07.08.2020 directing the termination of the services of the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions could not dispute the fact that enquiry report was the foundation of termination of the services of the petitioner. The failure to associate the petitioner with the enquiry and also to furnish the enquiry report to him is not denied.
Clearly the order of termination dated 25/26.08.2020 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 25/26.08.2020 does not reflect independent application of mind by the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj. It has been passed on the directions of the superior authority in the order dated 07.08.2020.
The order dated 25/26.08.2020 and the government order dated 07.08.2020 (in so far as it directs the termination of the services of the petitioner), are arbitrary and illegal.
The order dated 25/26.08.2020 passed by the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj and the Government order dated 07.08.2020 (only in so far as it directs the termination of the services of the petitioner) are liable to be set aside and are set aside.
Prima facie the charges against the petitioner are grave. The matter cannot be allowed to rest there and the charges have to be investigated independently.
The matter is remitted to the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj/ competent authority.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj/ competent authority to execute the following directions:
I. The respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj/ competent authority shall ensure that a proper enquiry is conducted against the petitioner as per procedure known to law.
II. A charge-sheet shall be served upon the petitioner along with documents proposed to be relied against him.
III. The enquiry officer shall conduct the enquiry as per law and provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
IV. In case enquiry proceedings indicts the petitioner, the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj/ competent authority shall issue a show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.
V. Upon receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj/ competent authority shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after independent application of mind.
VI. The respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj/ competent authority shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.
VII. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the enquiry proceedings.
VIII. In case the petitioner does not cooperate with the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry proceedings shall continue as per law and appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj/ competent authority.
IX. The respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj/District Programme Coordinator, Prayagraj/ competent authority and enquiry officer shall ensure that under all circumstances, enquiry is concluded within a period of four months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned and the Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above"
As similar controversy is involved in the present writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of extending the benefit of the order aforesaid passed in Writ A No. 7618 of 2020 to the petitioner also.
Order Date :- 16.12.2020 Rahul Dwivedi/-