Back
2014 Supreme(All) 1104
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : SANJAY MISRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, JJ.
AKHILESH TRIPATHI ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Service Bench) No. 581 of 2014, decided on 21st July, 2014)
Counsel :
C.B. Pandey for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Prabhat Kumar and Srideep Chatterjee for the Respondents.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Misconduct—Dismissal—Reinstatement—Locus to seek writ remedy against—Petitioner allegedly a News Reporter—Respondent No. 7 employed as Assistant Engineer—Submission of respondents that a writ of quo warranto would not lie against an order of reinstatement since it would not amount to a fresh appointment—Initial appointment and eligibility of respondent No. 7 not challenged—A person not aggrieved by an appointment order has no locus to maintain a writ petition—Concept of locus standi is strictly applicable to service jurisprudence when legality or correctness of an action is questioned—Respondent No. 7 also not holding a public office as alleged by petitioner—Relief sought by petitioner for issue of a writ of quo warranto and mandamus against Respondent No. 7 and a writ of certiorari against impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 held not maintainable. [Paras 16 to 31]
Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—The petitioner claims to be involved in the profession of news reporting and has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :
(i) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of Quo warranto thereby ousting the opposite party No. 7 Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi from the office of District Rural Development Agency, Raebareli which he has usurped the public office District Rural Development Agency, Raebareli holding the post of Assistant Engineer therein for which he is quite disqualified and under no authority of law he is entitled to hold the post of Assistant Engineer in the aforesaid public office of District Rural Development Agency, Raebareli.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the alleged order dated 21.4.2005 passed by opposite party No. 2 as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus thereby restraining the opposite party No. 7 from working and discharging his duties on the post of Assistant Engineer, District Rural Development Agency, Raebareli.
(iv) issue any other order or direction deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(v) allow the writ petition with costs.
2. Sri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the Respondent No. 7, Shailendra Kumar Tripathi was dismissed from service after due inquiry on 1.9.1992 and when his resignation was accepted on 3.8.1992 then the Respondent No. 1 (Principal Secretary) could not have set aside both the said orders to re-instate the Respondent No. 7 in service vide his order dated 21.4.2005 which is impugned in this writ petition.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition can be summarised as follows :
1. The Respondent No. 7 was engaged as a daily wager since 11.6.1985 to work as an Assistant Engineer in the District Rural Development Agency, Bahraich.
2. The DRDA is a supervisory autonomous body doing Rural Development and the Chairman is the District Magistrate who is the appointing authority of its employees.
3. The appointing authority vide its order dated 27.1.1986 appointed the Respondent No. 7 as Assistant Engineer on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 850-1720 till a regular appointment is made by the State Government or he can be terminated earlier.
4. The Respondent No. 7 was suspended on 29.10.1991 and in the inquiry he was found guilty of the charges hence he was dismissed by the order dated 1.9.1992.
5. The dismissal order dated 1.9.1992 also directed recovery of Rs. 16,02,391/- from the Respondent No. 7.
6. After the order of suspension (29.10.1991) and prior to the order of dismissal (1.9.1992) the Respondent No. 7 submitted a resignation letter dated 1.8.1992 which was accepted by the District Magistrate on 3.8.1992 with a rider that the Disciplinary proceedings already pending against him shall continue and in case any loss to the Government is proved against him he shall be liable for it.
7. The order dated 3.8.1992 was challenged by the Respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition No. 5822(SB) of 1992 (Shailendra Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others).
8. The Respondent No. 7 also challenged the order of dismissal dated 1.9.1992 in Writ Petition No. 6911(SB) of 1992 (Shailendra Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others).
9. Both the writ petitions were clubbed and an interim order dated 12.5.1993 was passed wherein the order dated 3.8.1992 (acceptance of resignation) and order dated 1.9.1992 (Dismissal were stayed with a direction that he will be treated in service and be entitled to salary and emoluments.
10. The DRDA filed SLP (Civil) No. 21444 of 1993 wherein by the order dated 7.4.1994 the Supreme Court set aside the interim order dated 12.5.1993 and the High Court was required to decide the writ petition within four months.
11. After ne
