[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)
Result; Appeal Allowed.
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.