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

2017 Supreme(All) 2820

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Maqsood Ahmad - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors - Respondent
W.A. No. 44212 of 2013
Decided On : 14-12-2017

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Bed Kant Mishra, A.Z. Khan, Mohd. Ibrar Khan, Praveen Mishra, S.K. Singh, Satyendra Kumar Mishra and Vishwa Ratan Dwivedi, Advocates
For the Respondent:C.S.C., M.C. Tripathi, Pradeep Kumar Tripathi and Vivek Verma, Advocates

The disciplinary proceedings must comply with the doctrine of natural justice and should not be arbitrary. Vague charges and arbitrary punishment orders can be set aside by the court.

Headnote:

Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceedings - U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niymawali 1962 - Sections 17, 35, 41 - The court found that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were not conducted in a fair manner as the charge itself was vague and the executive action suffered from the vice of noncompliance with the doctrine of natural justice. The court set aside the punishment order as it was imposed arbitrarily and remanded the matter to the Appointing Authority for fresh consideration of punishment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a government employee, was charged with unauthorised absence and was reverted to his basic pay. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted fairly and the charge against him was vague.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in a fair manner and the punishment order was imposed arbitrarily. The court set aside the punishment order and remanded the matter to the Appointing Authority for fresh consideration of punishment.

Issues: Fairness of disciplinary proceedings, compliance with natural justice, validity of punishment order

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceedings must comply with the doctrine of natural justice and should not be arbitrary. The charge against the petitioner was found to be vague, and the punishment order was set aside as it was imposed arbitrarily.

Final Decision: The court set aside the punishment order and remanded the matter to the Appointing Authority for fresh consideration of punishment.

ORDER :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.3.2012 passed by Nagar Ayukt, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur and the order dated 2.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur rejecting the Appeal of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed as Gangman/peon in Kanpur Nagar and he worked satisfactorily for a long time on the said post, but was later on transferred in the year 2004 to Nagar Nigam Girls Inter College, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur in 2004. In 2004-2005, the petitioner fell ill frequently. He filed an application for Medical Leave along with Medical Certificates issued by the Doctor concerned each time he took leave due to illness, but the Principal of the said college became annoyed with the petitioner and therefore arbitrarily marked him absent in the attendance register. He was also not paid salary for several months and he also sent legal notices to the Principal in this regard.

2. Later on, it was informed to the petitioner that an enquiry had been set up against the petitioner by the order of Up-Nagar Ayukta dated 23.8.2006 and Section Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer with a direction to serve a copy of the charge sheet upon the petitioner and to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to the Nagar Ayukta. In pursuance of the order passed on 23.8.2006, no enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer for a long time and after three years, all of a sudden, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 19.5.2009 wherein the Inquiry Officer who had now been promoted as Sahayak Nagar Ayukt informed him of two charges levelled against the petitioner.

3. The first charge in the charge sheet related to an alleged loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lacs) taken by the petitioner for business purposes for running the firm Al-Mansoor Garments without prior permission/information of his employer, Kanpur Nagar Ayukta, which was against the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1972 and the other charge related to unauthorised absence for a period of 280 days in between January 2004 to December 2005. With regard to second charge, the documentary evidence sought to be relied upon was a report sent by the Principal of Nagar Nigam Girls Inter College, Kidwai Nagar, and it was alleged that unauthorised absence of the petitioner was against Rule 88 of the Service Rules governing municipal employees.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in response to the said charge sheet, a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner, wherein it was seriously disputed that the petitioner had ever taken any loan from the State Bank of India, Kanpur Nagar and it was also alleged that regarding the said loan alleged to have been taken by him for business purposes for Al-Mansoor Garments, a criminal case had already been filed and the first charge was without any basis as he had never taken any such loan.

5. With regard to charge No. 2 of unauthorised absence for 280 days in between January 2004 to December 2005, the petitioner in his reply dated 24.7.2009 specifically stated that he fell ill frequently during the said period and he submitted Medical Certificates. He was never careless in the performance of his duties and the Principal of the College out of some personal dislike for the petitioner, had not let him sign the attendance register. Even when he was ten minutes late in reporting for duty he was marked absent for no reason at all, although he remained present in the college.

6. In the Enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer dated 25.7.2009, the first charge regarding taking of loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lacs) in the name of Al-Mansoor Garments was not found to be proved with regard to second charge, however, the Inquiry Officer found that although the petitioner had alleged that he was frequently ill and had submitted Medical Certificates whenever he fell ill and then reported for duty. On examination o



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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