Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1464 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Dev Krishna Tiwari

2016-04-20

SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, VIJAY LAXMI

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.05.2013, by means of which, claim petition of respondent No.1 was allowed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. 3. The Tribunal while allowing the claim petition, in paras-5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment observed as under: 5. At the very out-set it is to be mentioned here that the opposite party avoided filing of any CA/WS even though sufficient opportunities were afforded by this Tribunal. In view of the above fact, there is no option except to hold that the assertions made by the petitioner in the claim petition are to be presumed to have been admitted by the opposite party as the same stand uncontroverted. In my aforesaid view, I am fortified by the law laid down in 1994 SCC (L&S) 31 "Naseem Bano (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and others" and by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in {1999 (17) LCD-24} "P.N. Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others". 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the service conditions of the petitioner are governed under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, it was mandatory on the part of the opposite party to have strictly followed the provisions of Rule 9(4) and Rule 10(2) of the aforesaid Rules of 1999 by passing a reasoned order and since the impugned order dated 10-7-2012 (Annexure-1) is completely non-speaking and unreasoned order having been passed in gross violation of the provisions of the Rule 9(4) and Rule 10(2) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 which mandate for passing a reasoned order, the same is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. I have gone through the provisions of aforesaid Rules 9(4) and 10(2) of the Rules of 1999, and the impugned order dated 10-7-2012 (Annexure-1) and find that the Disciplinary Authority solely relying on the exparte enquiry reports dated 26-6-2007 and dated 21-9-2007 has passed the impugned order dated 10-7-2012 without giving any reason and applying his own mind in respect of numerous pleas raised by the petitioner in his explanation dated 18-12-2010 (Annexure-13) although the impugned order of punishment dated 10-7-2012 (Annexure-1) contains a reference about the explanation dated 18-12-2010 submitted by the petitioner. I am constrained to mention here that the opposite party in his impugned order dated 10-7-2012 (Annexure-1) did not discuss the documentary evidences available on record before him for arriving at a conclusion and no reason has at all been given in the impugned order for discarding the version of the petitioner made in his explanation dated 18-12-2010 (Annexure-13) which vitiates the impugned order dated 10-7-2012. 7. In "G. Valli Kumar Vs. Andhra Education Society 2010(2) SCC 497 " the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - "that the requirement of recording reasons by every quasi-judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting on individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effects of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned". 8. In (1990) 4 SCC page 594 "S.N. Mukharji Vs. Union of India" it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "reasons must be recorded while awarding punishment and in this regard what is necessary is that the reasons must be clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the point of controversy". 9. Keeping in view above mentioned legal position and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding passing of a reasoned and speaking order, when I scrutinise the impugned order dated 10-7-2012 (Annexure-1) it becomes crystal clear that the same has been passed without assigning any reason and without considering the issues raised by the petitioner in his explanation dated 18-12-2010 (Annexure-13) and, therefore, the impugned order dated 10-7-2012 (Annexure-1) is definitely unreasoned, non-speaking order having been passed without application of mind and as such the same is not legally sustainable. 4. We have gone through the aforesaid order and we find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted in any manner. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.