Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... vs Lalit Kumar Shukla And Another on 11 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?...Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53724-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5916 of 2023 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko And 3 Others Respondent :- Lalit Kumar Shukla And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Nand Kishore,Manish Mishra,Ram Lal Singh Kushwaha Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the State.
This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgement and order dated 31.01.2023 passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 571 of 2022 (Lalit Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P.).
The subject matter of contest before the tribunal was an order passed by the disciplinary authority against respondent no.1 imposing punishment of censure coupled with withholding of two increments temporarily. The minor punishment was imposed with the initiation of an inquiry for imposition of major penalty. Charge-sheet was accordingly issued on 18.12.2020 which was duly served upon him.
Learned tribunal after exchange of affidavits and having heard learned counsel for the parties has set aside the order impugned in the claim petition on the ground that the procedure prescribed under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was not followed.
The tribunal in paragraph-12 of the impugned judgement has also made some observation on the merit of the charge which in our humble consideration exceeds the jurisdiction of the learned tribunal.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that once the tribunal was of the opinion that due procedure for imposition of penalty has not been followed, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the departmental authorities as the allegations levelled against the opposite party no.1 were serious and parallel criminal proceedings were also going on with respect to an FIR lodged against him.
An entry pass of the Secretariat was utilised by the delinquent employee which was found to be unauthorised and for which the opposite party no.1 was not even entitled.
This Court without commenting on the merit of the charge at this stage, would find that the tribunal while setting aside the impugned order fell in error by not remitting the matter back to the departmental authorities for holding an inquiry afresh and passing necessary order in accordance with law.
To this extent the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the State deserves acceptance.
Having considered the submissions made before us, we are satisfied that a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out and the impugned judgement rendered by the tribunal deserves to be set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority for proceeding against the opposite party no.1 from the stage of issuance of charge-sheet afresh and the impugned judgement/order passed by the tribunal is hereby setaside.
The inquiry proceedings re-opened against the opposite party no.1 shall be concluded not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the disciplinary authority.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2023 Shahnaz