Allahabad High Court
State Project Director And Another vs Santosh Kumar Singh And 2 Others on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 42 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 160 of 2023 Appellant :- State Project Director And Another Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anuj Agrawal,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Gautam Baghel,Ashwani Kumar Sachan,Saurabh Sachan Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Order on Section 5 Application Cause shown is good and sufficient.
Delay condoned.
Order on Appeal Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anuj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent and Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioners.
Instant intra court appeal filed by the respondent/appellant is directed against the order dated 23 December 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the order dated 25 August 2022, passed by the appellant repatriating the respondent/petitioner to his parent department on expiry of the term of deputation came to be set aside as the order levelled certain allegations/charges of misconduct which in the opinion of the learned Single Judge is stigmatic.
On specific query, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner does not dispute that pursuant to the interim order dated 13 September 2022, petitioner later joined his parent department on 24 February 2023. However, aggrieved by the interim order, respondent challenged it in appeal being Special Appeal No. 647 of 2022, which came to be dismissed. The appellate court categorically noted that interest of the petitioner in respect of the stigmatic part has been protected. In other words, repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department was not disturbed.
It is in the aforenoted backdrop, the appellants are aggrieved that the order impugned in the writ petition dated 25 August 2022 could not have been completely set aside as a part of the order was duly complied by the respondent/petitioner pursuant to the interim order i.e. he had resumed his duties at the parent department upon repatriation.
The writ petition, therefore, was confined as to whether, the impugned order was stigmatic. The writ Court after setting aside the impugned order had directed the appellants to pass a fresh order after opportunity of hearing and considering the contentions of the petitioner in reply to the notice. It is urged that petitioner at this stage cannot be be reinstated as he has already joined his parent department.
Learned Senior Counsel in this backdrop submits that appellant have two options either to proceed with the show cause notice issued to the respondent/petitioner or on the show cause notice if prima facie the allegations appear to be correct in that event charges can be framed and records transmitted to the parent department for conducting enquiry. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in B.L. Satyarthi vs. State of M.P. and another (W.A. No. 1058 of 2009 decided on 29.9.2014).
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has no objection but submits that an appropriate decision as directed by the writ Court should have been taken by the appellant.
Be that as it may, since the respondent/petitioner has already been repatriated and the order to that extent stands complied, in the circumstances, direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant to take a decision would survive, insofar it relates to the stigmatic part of the order. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of directing the appellants to take a decision on the notice expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from date. The impugned order shall stand modified to the extent hereinabove.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023 S.Prakash