SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(All) 600

[2012(6) ADJ 632 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SYED RAFAT ALAM, C.J. AND RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.
RAVI KUMAR SONKER ....Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Special Appeal No. 388 of 2012, decided on 29th February, 2012)

Advocates:
Counsel :
R.K. Singh Yadav for the Appellant; Naval Singh and C.S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:U.P. Municipal Board’s Servant (Inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules—Rule 5—Misconduct—Imposition of major penalty—Procedure—Appellant appointed as a Clerk on the fixed salary of Rs. 3,500—His services terminated on the basis of alleged embezzlement—Single Judge dismissed the petition on ground that appellant could not show any error in the decision making process—Hence this appeal—Where the statute requires to do certain thing in a certain way, it must be done in that way—Admittedly, impugned order of termination has been passed without following the mandatory provisions beside being in violation of principles of natural justice—Nothing on record to show that the Inquiry Officer had fixed any date for oral inquiry—Punishment of termination imposed even without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 5—Impugned order quashed—Directions issued to reinstate the appellant. [Paras 6 to 15]

       Result; Appeal Allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—This intra Court appeal arises from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.1.2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 3928 of 2012 (Ravi Kumar Sonker v. State of U.P. and others), by which the appellant’s writ petition challenging the order of termination dated 1.11.2011, passed by Adhyaksh, Nagar Panchayat, Bharwari, District Kaushambi (hereinafter referred to as the Adhyaksh), has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant could not show any error in the decision making process, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as a Clerk in Nagar Panchayat, Bharwari, District Kaushambi on the fixed salary of Rs. 3,500/- against the sanctioned post by the Adhyaksh. Pursuant to the appointment letter, the appellant joined. However, since juniors to the appellant were regularised, he Writ Petition No. 31134 of 2011 for his regularisation. In the said writ petition, on 1.11.2011, the Court directed the Adhyaksh to apprise the Court as to under what provision the petitioner-appellant has been appointed on contractual basis without advertising the vacancy when the persons are waiting for regular appointment. It is contended that the writ petition is still pending and because of that, on the fake charges, the appellant’s service has been terminated on the basis of the alleged temporary embezzlement. It is submitted that although the charge-sheet was served but without there being any enquiry in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Board’s Servant (Inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules (hereinafter referred to as Municipal Board Servants Rules), the services of the appellant has been terminated for the alleged misconduct of temporary embezzlement. For appreciation, order of termination is reproduced hereunder :

^^dk;kZy; uxj iazpk;r Hkjokjh] tuin dkS’kkEch

i= la[;k% 429@u0i0e0@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh 2011&12 fnukad 01] uoEcj 2011

dk;kZy; Kki

Jh jfo dqekj lksudj]

fyfid] ¼fu;r osrueku½

uxj iapk;r Hkjokjh]

tuin&dkS’kkEchA

vkids fo:) fuEukafdr vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ekg twu&2011 ls izLrkfor gSA ekSf[kd :i ls vki ls dbZ ckj fLFkfr Li"V djus gsrq psrkouh nh x;h] fdUrq vkius vc rd oLrq fLFkfr ls Li"V ugh djk;kA vkids foL) fuEu xEHkhj foRrh; vfu;ferrkvksa ds lEcU/k esa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh izLrkfor gS%&

vkjksi la[;k&1

vkidks uxj iapk;r ds dj dh olwyh gsrq jlhn fuxZr dh x;h Fkh ftlesa vki }kjk iz;ksx dh x;h jlhnksa dk fooj.k fuEuor gS%&

vki }kjk fnukad 18-4-2011 ls 31-5-2011 rd olwyh x;h olwyh dh /kujkf’k 4-7-2011 dks uxj iapk;r ds [kkrk esa 9590 :0 ¼ukS gtkj ikap lkS uCcs :i;k½ tek dh x;h bl izdkj vkius uxj iapk;r dh 'kkldh; /ku dk vLFkkbZ :i ls xcu fd;k x;k rFkk tc olwyh dh /kujkf’k tek djus ds fy;s vki ij ekSf[kd :i ls ncko cuk;k x;k rks vki us 4-7-2011 dks mDr /kujkf’k uxj iapk;r ds [kkrs esa tek dh xbZA bl izdkj vki uxj iapk;r ds /ku dks vLFkk;h :i ls xcu djus ds nks"kh ik;s tkrs gSA bl vkjksi dh iqf"V esa vki }kjk fuxZr jlhn la[;k rFkk tek dh x;h pkyku i<+h tk;sxhA

vkjksi la[;k 2%&

vki }kjk iz;ksx dh jlhnksa esa jlhn la[;k %&

bl izdkj vkius fnukad 4-7-2011 dks eq0&3690-00 ¼eq0 rhu gtkj N% lkS uCcs :i;k½ uxj iapk;r ds [kkrs esa tek fd;kA olwyh ls T;knk /kujkf’k tek djuk fu;eksa ds foijhr gS rFkk vki }kjk ;g Li"V ugh fd;k x;k fd mDr vf/kd /kujkf’k fdl en dh gS rFkk dgkW ls izkIr gqbZ ftls vkius fcuk jlhn dkVs uxj iapk;r ds [kkrs esa tek dj fn;kA bl vkjksi dh iqf"V esa vki }kjk tek dh xbZ pkyku dh izfri.kZ i<+k tk;sxkA

vkjksi al[;k&3

vki }kjk iz;ksx dh x;h jlhnksa esa jlhn la[;k%&

bl izdkj vkius eq0 7480-00 ¼eq0 lkr gtkj pkj lkS vLlh :i;k½ fnukad 28-7-2011 olwyus ds i’pkr vius ikl j[ks gq, gS rFkk vki eq0&7480-00 ¼eq0 lkr gtkj pkj lkS vLlh :i;k½ dk xcu dj fy;k x;k gSA

vkjksi la[;k 4%&

vkius 277047 ls 277060 rd dh jlhnks dks [kkyh NksM+dj fuEu jlhnksa dk iz;ksx fd;kA

v









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top