Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2955 (ALL)

Rahul Rathi v. State Of U. P.

2010-09-23

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri J.K. Srivastava for the respondents no. 4. 2. The challenge is to the order dated 4th March 2008 whereby the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, U.P. Lucknow has rejected the claim of promotion of the petitioner and has cancelled it on the ground that it has been done in violation of the U.P. Animal Husbandry Department Ministerial Service Rules, 1981. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the other issues raised in the writ petition the primary ground on which the order deserves to be set aside is that the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. It has been alleged in Paragraph 15 of the writ petition that the Director before passing of the order did not provide any opportunity of hearing and it is further submitted that the order proceeded on the strength of a report submitted by the Finance Controller dated 11th February 2008 about which the petitioner had no knowledge. It is accordingly prayed that the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Director for decision afresh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the stand taken in the counter affidavit of the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 that the petitioner had been given opportunity by the Deputy Director, Finance Controller and the Joint Director is erroneous inasmuch as none of them did hear the matter and the Finance Controller's report has been made the basis who had get nothing to do with the hearing of the claim of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that the Finance Controller did not give any opportunity of hearing and further that the Officer concerned was on leave on the said date when the matter was fixed for hearing. It is therefore contended that the facts stated in Paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit of Devendra Pratap are based upon erroneous facts and accordingly in view of the law laid down in the judgment of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao, Somasankar Sastri Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, reported in the order deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3? and Sri J.K. Srivastava for the respondent no. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, reported in the order deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3? and Sri J.K. Srivastava for the respondent no. 4 contend that as a matter of fact the petitioner had been given ample opportunity and hence the aforesaid stand cannot be accepted. 7. Having perused the averments contained in the counter affidavit and having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed on this short ground inasmuch as even if the hearing was given by the Deputy Director or the Joint Director the order has been passed by the Director. The law as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of G. Nageswara Rao (supra) clearly lays down that if one person hears and another decides then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. It was therefore held that the procedure followed offends the basic principle of judicial procedure. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court on facts that emerge from the pleadings, it is evident that the matter was heard by some other officer and relying on the report of the Finance Controller the impugned order has been passed. The report of the Finance Controller was not supplied to the petitioner. In view of this the order dated 4th March 2008 is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. 9. The matter is remitted back to the Director Animal Husbandry, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow who shall after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the respondent no. 4 proceed to pass an appropriate order after calling for comments and allowing the petitioner to raise objections to the report dated 11.2.2008. The said exercise shall be completed as early as possible as but not later than three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. 10. The writ petition is disposed of.