Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Through Secretary Sugar ... vs Tejendra Pal Singh on 11 February, 2020
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 7 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 117 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Sugar Industries, Anubhag-1. Secretariat, Lucknow and 3 others Respondent :- Tejendra Pal Singh s/o Sri Dalel singh, R/o Village Khudaliya, Post Office Simibhaoli, District-Ghaziabad. Counsel for Appellant :- P.K.Ganguly Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Shukla, Chitransh Srivastava Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
At the outset, the learned advocate representing the appellants submits that due to inadvertence, the appellant no. 4 has been wrongly impleaded, and as such he prays that the appellant no. 4 may be struck out from the array of the parties before us.
Let the name of appellant no. 4 be transposed as respondent no. 2 in the present appeal instead of being struck out from the array of parties before us.
This Special Appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 13th March, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.-55353 of 2003 (Tejendra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition with certain observations / directions.
This appeal has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh; Cane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh and District Cane Officer, Meerut.
A plain reading of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the issue before the learned Single Judge centred around an order dated 16th March, 2002, passed by the Cane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, imposing penalty of recovery of Rs. 6,18,941/- (Rupees six lakhs eighteen thousand nine hundred and forty one-only) from the respondent / writ petitioner and two others and also awarding an adverse entry. The respondent / writ petitioner had also challenged the order dated 17th September, 2003, passed by the Secretary, State of U.P., rejecting the respondent / writ petitioner's representation.
The learned Single Judge, while considering the matter on its merit, took notice of Regulation 68 of the U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the 1975 Regulations) since it was the specific contention of the respondent / writ petitioner that the enquiry against the respondent / writ petitioner was not conducted in accordance with the said Regulation.
The following extract from the impugned judgment and order will clearly reflect that the learned Single Judge, upon considering Regulation 68 of the 1975 Regulations, came to the following conclusion:-
"7. The above procedure clearly shows that when a charge-sheet is issued to a delinquent employee and after receiving his reply, if charges are not admitted, oral enquiry has to be conducted by Enquiry Officer by fixing date, time and place in which Department shall be given opportunity to prove charges and witnesses produced by Department, shall be allowed to be cross-examined by employee concerned. Thereafter, employee concerned shall be given opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence in defence and, thereafter, Department and employee both shall be given time to submit their written statements/written submissions in support of their case and then Enquiry Officer shall submit report to Disciplinary Authority.
8. In the present case, no such enquiry was conducted by fixing date, time and place for adducing evidence, therefore, entire procedure till the date of submission of enquiry report straightaway to competent authority is wholly illegal.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case I find it difficult to hold that procedure laid down in Regulation 68 of Regulations, 1975 has been followed. Dealing with the same provisions, now, the law is well settled that oral enquiry is mandatory, otherwise, order of punishment is bad in law. "
Thereafter, the learned Single Judge also took note of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others1 where the 1975 Regulations had been considered. In the above backdrop, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition in the following terms:-
"11. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.03.2002 and consequential order dated 17.09.2003, insofar as it relates to petitioner, are hereby set aside. However, this order shall not preclude respondents-competent authority from passing afresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner in accordance with law. "
It is evident that the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16th March, 2002, as well as the consequential order dated 17th September, 2003, insofar as it related to the respondent / writ petitioner, made it clear that the Court's order would not preclude the competent authority from passing a fresh order giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent / writ petitioner, in accordance with law.
In such circumstances and particularly in absence of any palpable infirmities or perversities, we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. This Special Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.2.2020 Imroz/Deepak (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Dr. Y. K. Srivastava,J. )