Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1123 (ALL)

Bhagwan Sharan Shukla v. State of U. P.

2015-05-07

NARAYAN SHUKLA, RAJAN ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Challenge herein is to the judgment of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated 9.4.2015 passed in Claim Petition No.1050 of 2014, Bhagwan Sharan Shukla v. State of U.P. and ors., as also to the orders of punishment as also the order of forfeiture of salary for the period of suspension and the appellate order, which was impugned before the Tribunal. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners without considering the points raised therein by recording a cryptic finding that the impugned orders had been passed after due consideration of the facts of the case and giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, therefore, there was no procedural lapse. 4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though a regular inquiry was instituted against the petitioner by issuance of a chargesheet, but after submission of the reply to the same by the petitioner, no date, time and place of inquiry was fixed nor any inquiry was held by the inquiry officer. Inspite of the denial of the assertion that Sri Gaya Prasad, whose statement was being relied to prove the charge against the petitioner, was not examined in the presence of the petitioner nor was the petitioner allowed to examine/cross examine him. Specific averments made in this regard in para 4.13 of the claim petition were not categorically denied by the opposite parties before the Tribunal, as would be evident from bare reading of paragraph 13 of their written statement, but the tribunal did not consider any of the pleas raised before it and dismissed the claim petition without due application of mind. 5. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already been reinstated on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings resulting in the imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment temporarily. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that some of the charges were based on documentary evidence for which no inquiry was required. 7. We have considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the records. 8. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that some of the charges were based on documentary evidence for which no inquiry was required. 7. We have considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the records. 8. On perusal of the pleadings contained in the claim petition we find that several relevant issues relating to procedural lapses in the inquiry were raised in the claim petition and on a reading of the written statement of the opposite parties we find that the averments were not categorically and specifically denied, specially the averments made in para 4.13 of the claim petition to the effect that no date, time and place of inquiry was fixed nor any inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer. Specific averment had been made in para 4.13 that the statement of Sri Gaya Prasad was not recorded in his presence. 9. From a reading of the replies of the petitioner contained in the inquiry report and the punishment order, we have no hesitation in saying that the inquiry was not conducted as per law as no date, time and place of inquiry was fixed nor any inquiry was conducted to prove the charges against the petitioner, though the burden was upon the inquiry officer. Gaya Prasad was neither allowed to be examined nor cross-examined by the petitioner herein. The petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The principles of Natural Justice were not satisfied. 10. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the Tribunal has referred to the case set out in the claim petition, written statement and the rejoinder affidavit, but thereafter it has failed to consider the pleas raised by the petitioner, as referred hereinabove in a proper perspective and has recorded a telegraphic observation that the disciplinary proceedings did not suffer from any procedural lapse. Without considering the pleas of the petitioner, the cryptic observations/findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be sustained on the basis of pleadings and material on record. The Tribunal was under an obligation to consider and record its findings in respect of the relevant issues involved in the light of the pleas raised and the material adduced before it and to have passed a considered judgment regarding the claim of the petitioner. The Tribunal was under an obligation to consider and record its findings in respect of the relevant issues involved in the light of the pleas raised and the material adduced before it and to have passed a considered judgment regarding the claim of the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order does not satisfy the test of a "Judgment", which is required to be passed by the Tribunal. 11. In view of the above, the impugned judgment dated 9.4.2015 passed in Claim Petition No.1050 of 2014, Bhagwan Sharan Shukla v. State of U.P. and ors., is quashed. 12. In view of our finding that the inquiry was not conducted as per law, the order of punishment dated 15.1.2014 and the appellate order dated 13.6.2014 cannot be sustained, consequently the same are also quashed. Thus, the matter need not be remanded back to the Tribunal. 13. In view of the above, the order dated 31.1.2014 for forfeiture of salary for the period of suspension also does not survive and the same is also set aside. 14. In these circumstances, we remand the matter back to the inquiry officer for conducting an inquiry afresh as per law. He shall submit inquiry report to the disciplinary authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, who shall thereafter proceed to take appropriate decision in the matter as per the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 within period of next six weeks and shall communicate the decision to the petitioner accordingly. 15. As the petitioner has already been reinstated consequent to the culmination of disciplinary proceedings, the same shall not be disturbed, but shall be subject to the fresh decision to be taken by the disciplinary authority, who shall also take a fresh decision with regard to the forfeiture of salary for the period of suspension. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.