Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 680 (ALL)

Arunesh Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-02-25

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT This special appeal has arisen from an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The appellant was posted as Senior Assistant in the office of the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Khuthan, District Jaunpur. The appellant was initially suspended pending a disciplinary enquiry and was charge-sheeted. The appellant submitted his reply. Three charges were framed against the appellant which are summarized in the final order dated 1 June 2015 passed by the Director, as follows: "1- fodkl [k.M cnykiqj ds LFkk;h fuoklh gksus ds dkj.k jktuhfr esa lfdz; Hkkx fy;k tkuk o 'kkldh; dk;ksZ esa : fp u ysukA 2- vius lkFkh deZpkfj;ksa ds izfr lEekutud O;ogkj u djuk rFkk vieku lwpd 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx djukA 3- ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh tkSuiqj dks 'kkldh; dk;ksZ esa lg;ksx u djuk rFkk vjktd rRoksa ls feydj tuinh; vf/kdkfj;ksa ls vHknzrk o vuq'kklughurk djukA" 3. The Inquiry Officer, by his report dated 3 December 2014, came to the conclusion that the first charge was not proved, but held that the second and third charges stood established. On 1 June 2015, the Director passed final orders for the transfer of the appellant from District Jaunpur to District Sonbhadra; for the stoppage of annual increments for a period of one year and for recording of an adverse entry in the ACRs of the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 19 June 2015 staying the transfer to Sonbhadra. The writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 22 January 2016. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that none of the substantive challenges of the appellant to the order of penalty which was imposed in the course of the disciplinary proceedings have been dealt with. The impugned order merely records the allegations and the penalty which was imposed and thereafter the learned Single Judge has held that no illegality or infirmity was found in the order. We find from the writ petition that there were substantive challenges to the order which was passed in the disciplinary proceedings. The impugned order merely records the allegations and the penalty which was imposed and thereafter the learned Single Judge has held that no illegality or infirmity was found in the order. We find from the writ petition that there were substantive challenges to the order which was passed in the disciplinary proceedings. Among the challenges, there was a ground that the enquiry had been conducted without furnishing to the appellant a due and proper opportunity and without the charges being proved on the basis of the evidence on the record. 6. In our view, the appropriate course of action would be to set aside the impugned order and restore the proceedings back to the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh. 7. We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 22 January 2016. Writ-A No.35324 of 2015 shall stand restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh. Since no counter affidavit has been filed by the State, we permit the respondents to do so within a period of six weeks from today. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before and decided by the learned Single Judge. 8. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.