Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Prakash Singh on 5 November, 2020
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee
SLP(C) D.5276/2020
1
ITEM NO.19 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.5276/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-10-2019
in SB No. 28859/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAM PRAKASH SINGH Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.35462/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING SLP and IA No.35464/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 05-11-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
For Petitioner(s)
Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 Delay condoned.
2 The penalty that was imposed on the respondent after a disciplinary enquiry was set aside on 23 January 2014, with a direction to conclude the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by disciplinary enquiry from the stage of the reply to the show cause notice Chetan Kumar Date: 2020.11.05 18:56:58 IST Reason: within three months. Ms Ruchira Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf SLP(C) D.5276/2020 2 of the petitioner submits that during the course of the enquiry which took place on remand, the respondent did not participate in the proceedings. The total loss which was caused as a result of a financial scam was estimated at Rs 2.50 crores, of which it has been submitted that the amount which has been attributed to the respondent is Rs 10.25 lakhs, which is to be recovered. Learned counsel submits that even if there is a breach of natural justice by not giving a copy of the enquiry report to the respondent, this could have been remedied in terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad vs B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727, by directing the State to furnish a copy of the report to the respondent. The court has been apprised of the fact that in terms of Regulation 351AA, the respondent is being paid provisional pension.
2 Issue notice, returnable in twelve weeks.
3 Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The contempt proceedings shall remain stayed in the meantime.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master