Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1099 (ALL)

VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-04-12

V.K.SHUKLA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Vinod Kumar presently working as Lekhpal with Settlement Officer Consolidation in District Pratapgarh has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 25.2.2003 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah dispensing with the services of the petitioner. 2. Brief background of the case is that complaint has been made against the petitioner, who had been performing his duty as Consolidation Lekhpal. On the said complaint being made, departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner and charge-sheet dated 6.7.2010 had been issued accordingly levelling therein all four charges. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet on 4.8.2010 and thereafter, inquiry officer submitted his report on 11.2.2011. Petitioner thereafter, had been issued show-cause notice on 9.3.2011 and again reminder was given to him on 23.11.2011. It appears that in July, 2012 petitioner was transferred to district Pratapgarh and he is performing and discharging his duty at Pratapgarh. Petitioner submits that inspite of the fact that he has been performing his duty with the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pratapgarh, an order has been passed on 25.2.2013 by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah proceeding to dispense with the services of the petitioner. Petitioner at this juncture has approached this Court. 3. Sri. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that once petitioner has been transferred from the office of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah to the office of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pratapgarh and has been performing his duty at district Pratapgarh, then Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah has got no territorial jurisdiction to pass order dispensing with the services of the petitioner as has been done in the present case and in view of this, order dated 25.2.2013 is without jurisdiction. 4. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that rightful action has been taken and no interference be made. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation which has so emerged that petitioner is currently posted and discharging his duty as consolidation lekhpal with the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pratapgarh. It is true that misconduct which has been committed by him qua the same proceedings have been initiated at Etawah and inquiry officer submitted his report and the question is that on the date when punishment order is to be imposed as to whether Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah is competent to pass such order or not. 6. It is true that misconduct which has been committed by him qua the same proceedings have been initiated at Etawah and inquiry officer submitted his report and the question is that on the date when punishment order is to be imposed as to whether Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah is competent to pass such order or not. 6. Under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, Rule-6 clearly proceeds to mention that appointing authority of an incumbent shall be the disciplinary authority and who subject to the provision of aforementioned rule would proceed to impose penalty as provided for. This much is clear that appointing authority is the disciplinary authority in the matter of imposition of punishment. Under U.P. Consolidation Lekhpals service Rules, 1978, Settlement Officer Consolidation has been defined as officer in Section 3(9) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Under Rule-15 appointing authority of the Consolidation Lekhpal is Settlement Officer Consolidation and thus this much is clear that Settlement Officer Consolidation is the disciplinary authority of the consolidation lekhpal. 7. Here in the present case factual situation which has so emerged, that on the date when termination order has been passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Etawah, petitioner has not at been all functioning under him and in view of this, issue is as to whether Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah was competent to pass order of termination or not. Once petitioner was not at all functioning under the administrative control of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah, then by no stretch of imagination, services of the petitioner could have disengaged by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah and in case disciplinary proceedings have been conducted, then it would have been much more appropriate that entire record ought to have been transmitted to Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pratapgarh who was disciplinary authority of the petitioner and at the said point of time by virtue of being posted at Pratapgarh and Settlement Officer Consolidation Pratapgarh could have taken action in accordance with law. Once order has been passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah inspite of the fact that petitioner was not at all working under him and had been transferred to Pratagarph, then in such a situation said order cannot be said to well within his jurisdiction and competence. Consequently, order of punishment dated 25.2.2013 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, order of punishment dated 25.2.2013 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah is hereby quashed and set aside. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Etawah is directed to transmit entire record in respect of disciplinary proceeding to Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pratapgarh, who shall take appropriate decision on the same in accordance with law preferably within period of next four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. ——————