Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P.Throu.Prin Secy.Energy ... on 24 November, 2020
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 21 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22171 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin Secy.Energy And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Vashu Deo Mishra Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 and Mr. Vashu Deo Mishra learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 5.
Petition has been filed against order dated 14th October, 2020 whereby certain major punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner along with a direction for lodging of first information report against him.
On the basis of the instructions, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that during the pendency of the appellate orders, which has been passed against other employees also, has not been implemented during the pendency of the appeal.
The learned counsel for the respondent has raised an preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of an appeal under Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules ,1999, thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per regulation 6 (5) of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) (Conditions and Service) Regulations, 1975 the remedy of appeal is not available with the petitioner for the reason that appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the Chairman of the Board.
The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the provision 2 (c) wherein it has been provided that Nigam shall be regulated mutatis mutandis and subject to any other regulation for the time being in force by rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to corresponding categories of Government Servants under the rule making control of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The Nigam has adopted the Rules, 1999.
After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, it is found that the petitioner is having alternative efficacious statutory remedy available with him by filing an appeal under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1999, thus, the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason mentioned hereinabove and is accordingly dismissed. The liberty is given to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the competent authority.
Order Date :- 24.11.2020 Ashish