Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Up And 5 Others on 31 May, 2024
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:99908 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3315 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta,Nipun Singh,Sunil Kumar Misra,Umesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel assisted by Anubhav Chandra, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for respondent- Awas Vikas and Sri Umesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent- Prayagraj Development Authority.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the prayer to quash the order of suspension dated 22.02.2024 passed by respondent no.1- Additional Chief Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning Development, Lucknow.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed at Deputy Secretary in the year 2011. Subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Joint Secretary and transferred at various places from time to time. The petitioner has joined his duties on the post of Joint Secretary, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj, in the month of October, 2021. A complaint was made by one Smt. Gajala Begum, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Prayagraj and on the said complaint an inquiry was set-up. In this regard, a letter dated 21.6.2023 was written by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Prayagraj to the Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Vikas Praishad Nirman Khand-35 Prayagraj to inquire the complaint made by Smt. Gazala Begum.
4. It is stated in paragraph no.6 of the writ petition that the Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad wrote a letter dated 11.07.2023 to the Secretary/ In-charge, Enforcement, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj stating therein about the aforesaid letter dated 21.6.2023 with regard to the illegal encroachment of the two shops and with request to get the possession over the shop which was illegally encroached. The aforesaid letter was received in the Office of petitioner on 18.7.2023 as Register No.484. The said letter was marked by him to Building Inspector namely Mr. Kunwar Anand, for necessary action. After necessary inquiry, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Superintending Engineer, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad on 24.07.2023 stating therein that the place where the encroachment was made, belongs to U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad, hence, no interference is required from thePrayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj. Copy of the aforesaid letter is annexed as Annexure No. (4) to the present petition.
5. On 2.8.2023, a letter being letter no.586 was written by the Superintending Engineer, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad, Prayagraj to the petitioner being Zonal Officer / Joint Secretary,Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj stating therein that that necessary action will be taken in the matter on 4.8.2023 between 11:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. and a request has been made to help for demolishing the illegal encroachment. The aforesaid letter was marked by the petitioner to the Building Inspector on 3.8.2023 is quoted as under:-
"???? ???, ???? ??????? ???????:- 586 ????????? ????? ????????? ?????? :- 03-08-2023 ????????? ?
?????-????????? ??? ????? ????????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????01 ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????, ????????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? 277 / ????? / ??? / ???????? / 2023 ?????? 24.07.2023 ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??????-1 ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? 04.08. 2023 ?? ???? 11 ??? ?? ????? 3 ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?????/?????? ?? ????????? ????? ?????
Ram Lakhan (??? ???) ??????? ????????"
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the demolition proceeding has taken place by the concerned officers of U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad. In the said demolition, only the necessary help was given by the petitioner.
7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, Mohd. Saif and Mohd. Mahfooz Ansari, who were the encroachers over the two shops which were demolished by the Avas Vikas Parishad, preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.31289 of 2023 (Mohd. Said and another vs. State of U.P. and 7 Others). The said writ petition was duly entertained and the order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 22.12.2023. While passing the aforesaid order, a direction was given to the Principal Secretary to institute a thread-bare fact finding inquiry to ascertain and fix accountability for the apparently illegal action noted above. Further direction was also given to fix the accountability as to how demolition was allowed to be carried out and completed on the strength of communications, that were forged.
8. Paragraph no. 15 of the aforesaid order is quoted as under:-
"15. In addition to the above, since the U.P. Awas and Vikas Parishad as also the Prayagraj Development Authority function under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. Let the concerned Principal Secretary institute a thread bare fact finding inquiry to ascertain and fix accountability for the apparently illegal actions as have been noted above. Thus accountability may be fixed as to how demolition was allowed to be carried out and completed on the strength of communications, that were forged. After due inquiry, disciplinary as also criminal proceedings may be instituted against those at fault. "
9. Apart from the same, a letter dated 2.8.2023 was written by Sri Ram Lakhan/ Superintending Engineer, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad to the Executive Engineer, Construction Division Prayagraj -01, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad, Prayagraj stating therein that the demolition proceedings will take place on 4.8.2023 in the morning between 11:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. hence, he was directed to be present on the spot along with concerned Assistant Engineer and other relevant persons. Copy of the aforesaid letter was also forwarded to the petitioner which was entered in the office record of the petitioner's office at Register No.589. The aforesaid letter was again marked by the petitioner to the concerned officer on 03.08.2023.
10. On the said letter, the petitioner on the very same day directed the Building Inspector for the necessary & needful action on 04.08.2023. It is further stated that on 04.08.2024, the Building Inspector as well as driver of JCB were present on the spot of demolition. The demolition was done after the permission of the Officers of U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad. It is further stated that the aforesaid demolition was done in the presence of Sri Shyam Maurya, Assistant Engineer, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad.
11. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that wholly illegally the order of suspension dated 22.02.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 against the petitioner. It is further argued that the property which was demolished, belongs to the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad and the petitioner has no role in the matter. It is further argued that the necessary help was provided by the petitioner only in view of the letter dated 02.08.2023 written by the Superintending Engineer, namely- Ram Lakhan to the petitioner.
12. In this view of the matter, it is further argued that insofar as the demolition proceedings are concerned, the petitioner has absolutely no role to play but wholly illegally he was placed under suspension. Hence, a prayer has been made to quash the order of suspension dated 22.02.2024 passed by respondent no.1.
13. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 that pursuant to the order dated 22.12.2023, passed by this Court as quoted above, direction was given to the State Government vide its letter dated 09.01.2024 directing the Housing Commissioner (Administration) Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to hold an inquiry. Pursuant to the aforesaid, two confidential reports were submitted, one by Additional Housing Commissioner, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad, Lucknow dated 30.01.2024 and another by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj dated 08.02.2024.
14. The respondent no.1 examined the aforesaid reports and found that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of performing certain acts not existing in his jurisdiction and necessary directions were issued by him without any intimation to the senior officer. It is further stated in the aforesaid affidavit that the chargesheet has already been issued to the petitioner on 08.04.2024 and the Inquiry Officer i.e. Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj issued a letter dated 18.04.2024 informing the petitioner that 17.05.2024 is the date fixed for personal appearance.
15. In this view of the matter, it is argued by counsel for the respondents that the order of suspension is absolutely perfect and valid and does not call any interference by this Court.
16. A reply to the aforesaid counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. It is stated in the aforesaid rejoinder affidavit that the Additional Commissioner while submitting the report dated 30.01.2024 relied upon the news of the Newspapers as well as the photographs which were part of the writ petition filed by Mohd. Saif (supra) wherein it is mentioned that " ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?0 ??0 ?0 ?? ??? ???????".
17. It is further stated that in the inquiry report submitted by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj that due to non-communication between the two departments i.e. the petitioner/ Zonal Officer, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj as well as Sri Ram Lakhan, Executive Engineer and Sri Shyam Lal Maurya, Assistant Engineer, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad have done the complete fault.
18. A counter affidavit has also been filed by Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5- U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad.
19. After narrating the facts of the case, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 that since the present petition is pertaining to the Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj and the State Government, he is only proforma party.
20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
21. From perusal of the record it transpires that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the case of Mohd. Saif (supra) dated 22.12.2023, inquiry was directed to be constituted by the State Government vide its letter dated 09.02.2024. By the aforesaid letter, two officials were directed to conduct the inquiry namely, Housing Commissioner and Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in place of Housing Commissioner, the Inquiry Report was submitted by the Additional Housing Commissioner, which is clear from Annexure No.(2) to the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 & 2.
22. Nothing has been stated in the entire counter affidavit that under what circumstances the report was submitted by the Additional Housing Commissioner, in place of Housing Commissioner.
23. Insofar as the report submitted by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj is concerned. It is stated that the action was taken by the Zonal Officer, Prayagraj Development Authority Prayagraj pursuant to the forged letter dated 02.08.2023. It is further stated that the action was taken by the petitioner without any instructions of the Higher Authorities.
24. From perusal of the record it also transpires that after the aforesaid reports were submitted, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The only reason was given in the order of suspension that the petitioner has participated in demolition proceeding without giving any information to the Higher Authorities and in violation of the Rules of U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad. Insofar as the permission of the Higher Authorities are concerned, it is clear from the record that the petitioner himself is Zonal Officer / Joint Secretary, in Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj and he has the authority to take action in the matter. The only thing which was done by the petitioner in the entire matter is to direct the Building Inspector to look into the matter.
25. The aforesaid direction was given by the petitioner to the Building Inspector pursuant to the letter dated 2.8.2023 written by the Superintending Engineer, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad. In case it is found that the aforesaid letter dated 02.08.2023 written by the Superintending Engineer, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad is forged then it is not the fault of the petitioner at all.
26. Apart from the same, this Court is of the opinion that the order of suspension has been passed pursuant to the two confidential reports, which were submitted by Additional Housing Commissioner, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad, Lucknow dated 30.01.2024 and by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj dated 08.02.2024. The same were not at all taken into consideration while passing the order of suspension.
27. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order of suspension dated 22.2.2024 passed against the petitioner is per se illegal and is liable to be set-aside and hereby set-aside. The present petition is allowed.
28. Since, the initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is concerned. The chargesheet has already been issued against the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to submit his reply, in case the same has not yet been submitted within two weeks from today. The disciplinary authority is directed to conclude the proceeding most expeditiously. Further direction is issued to the petitioner to cooperate with the inquiry and will not take any unnecessary adjournment.
29. It is made clear that the disciplinary authority will take a decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the order.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024/S.K.