Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1175 (ALL)

Girja Shanker Misra v. State of U. P.

2023-04-27

IRSHAD ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT Irshad Ali, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent- State. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the three months' compulsory retirement notice dated 29.3.2003, served upon the petitioner on 4.4.2003 (Annexure34) and the communication order dated 13.5.2003, sent by the D.D.O., Kheri, for the rejection of the petitioner's representation by the District Magistrate, Kheri on 8.5.2003. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner worked on leave vacancy on the post of Junior Clerk in the office of District Harijan and Social Welfare Office, Kheri w.e.f. 12.10.1964 to 30.11.1964. Thereafter, he worked on leave vacancy in the office of B.D.O., Behjam, Kheri in the same capacity. He was appointed on regular basis on the said post of District Planning Officer, Kheri and thereafter, he worked at different places in the same capacity. The petitioner while working as a Lekha Lipik at the office of B.D.O., Isa Nagar, Kheri was suspended vide order dated 8.5.1998. He submitted reply to the charges of suspension but later on, the charges were changed by the Enquiry Officer and then the petitioner again submitted his reply on 1.7.1998. 4. The D.D.O., Kheri quashed the suspension order with a rider of warning on 22.11.1999. The petitioner sent his representation on 28.2.2000. He was again suspended while working as Lekha Lipik in the office of Vikas Khand, Pasgawan, Kheri on 28.1.2002. He submitted reply to the charges levelled against him on 5.2.2002. He submitted letter to the Jila Nirvachan Adhikari/ District Magistrate, Kheri on 15.2.2002. He submitted a letter on 16.3.2002 to the District Development Officer, Kheri for appointing another Enquiry Officer of district level. 5. He was served with the charge sheet consisting of four charges on 10.4.2002. He submitted reply to the charge sheet dated 10.4.2002 on 2.6.2002. He then submitted a letter on 28.6.2002 to the District Development Officer, Kheri for supply of relevant papers. The District Development Officer, Kheri sent letter to the Block Development Officer, Pasgawan, Kheri for supply of documents and to permit inspection of the papers of which documents could not be supplied. He again submitted letter on 5.8.2002 to the B.D.O., Pawgawan, Kheri to supply the documents and to fix a date for inspection. 6. The District Development Officer, Kheri sent letter to the Block Development Officer, Pasgawan, Kheri for supply of documents and to permit inspection of the papers of which documents could not be supplied. He again submitted letter on 5.8.2002 to the B.D.O., Pawgawan, Kheri to supply the documents and to fix a date for inspection. 6. On 17.1.2002, the D.D.O., Kheri passed an order of reinstatement of the petitioner with the condition that he would not be paid with more than suspension allowance. One annual increment was withheld as well as adverse entry was recorded. The petitioner submitted appeal before the D.D.O., Kheri against the condition imposed in the reinstatement order. He sent a letter to the D.D.O., Kheri to the effect that he is senor to Ram Swaroop Dixit and he should be given the post of senior most Lekha Lipik. 7. The B.D.O., Pasgawan, Kheri communicated the adverse entry of the year 2001-02 vide letter dated 16.1.2003. On 4.4.2003, the D.D.O., Kheri sent three months' compulsory retirement notice dated 29.3.2002 to the petitioner. He submitted reply on 9.4.2003 to the show cause notice for the compulsory retirement. The D.D.O., Kheri communicated to the petitioner that his representation against three months' compulsory notice was rejected by the District Magistrate, Kheri on 8.5.2003. He was served with the rejection order of the application for supplying the documents for the adverse entry for the year 2002-03. 8. Assailing the impugned order dated 8.5.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is mere noting and no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the District Magistrate in passing the impugned order. Under the government order dated 12.5.1976 under the head 'kha', it has been provided as under :- ^^¼[k½ ,sls leLr deZpkfj;ksa] ftuds fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh jkT;iky ugha gSa] dks vfuok;Z lsokfuo`Rr fd;s tkus ds fo:) muds izR;kosnu ij ml vf/kdkjh }kjk ftlus vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr dk vkns'k tkjh fd;k gS] fopkj fd;k tk,xk vkSj mfpr vkns'k tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA** 9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate, in violation of the provisions contained under the government order, has proceeded to pass the impugned order. He submits that the impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and is liable to be set aside by this Court. 10. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate, in violation of the provisions contained under the government order, has proceeded to pass the impugned order. He submits that the impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and is liable to be set aside by this Court. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, very fairly contended that in case the District Magistrate, by noting, has passed the order, the petitioner may be given liberty to file fresh representation on which he would pass necessary orders, by assigning reasons. He also submits that there are nine adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner and out of ten, one detail of the case could not be made available therefore, relying on the adverse entries of the petitioner, the order of compulsory retirement has been passed by the competent authority who is D.D.O., therefore, the order does not suffer from infirmity or illegality and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. After having heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 12. In pursuance to an order passed by the Court dated 24.3.2023, the record has been produced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. On a bare perusal of the record, it is transpired that the District Magistrate has not assigned reasons in passing the impugned order. Only by a noting, he has rejected the representation. As per the provisions contained under the government order dated 12.5.1976, the District Magistrate would have passed the order by recording reasons. 13. In view of the above, the order bearing on the record, which is a note of the District Magistrate, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation with a period of two weeks from today with the direction to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh reasoned speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.