JUDGMENT :

C.M. Application No. 1 of 2023 : Application for Condonation of Delay

(1) This intra Court appeal has been filed beyond 25 days.

(2) Heard Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Avinash Chandra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State/respondents.

(3) Since cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid application is satisfactory, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

(Order on Memo of Appeal)

(4) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the direction given in paragraph-14 of the interim order dated 28.11.2022 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ-A No. 7888 of 2022 : Anjali Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, whereby Hon’ble Single Judge granted liberty to the respondents/State to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the order and also to post the writ petitioner at any place, considering the fact that disciplinary proceedings are pending against her, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.

(5) Placing reliance upon paragraphs 25, 27 and 36 of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ashutosh Shrotriya and others Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University and others : AIR 2015 All 187 (FB), Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel submits that the order under appeal passed by Hon’ble Single Judge does not fall within the meaning of ‘judgment’ but it is an interlocutory order, therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the instant intra Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner/appellant against the impugned interim order passed Hon’ble Single Judge while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable.

(6) Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Prof. Y.C. Simhadri, Vice-Chancellor, B.H.U. and others Vs. Deen Bandhu Pathak, Student : 2001 (4) A.W.C. 2688 and Hind Lamps Limited Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra and another : 2002 (3) AWC 1908 and has submitted that the order under appeal passed by Hon’ble Single Judge has trappings of finality since the Hon’ble Single Judge has granted liberty to the respondents to continue the disciplinary proceedings and also to post the writ petitioner at any place. His submission is that if the disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance of the order dated 21.04.2022 on the basis of anonymous complaint is completed and the appellant/writ petitioner is punished, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant would ultimately become infructuous.

(7) Elaborating his submission, Shri Vivek Raj Singh has contended that on 19.11.2022, the appellant, while working as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Barabanki, intercepted a vehicle, bearing registration No. HR38AA6286 and found that there was metallic scrap of 2.5 M.T. goods, which was held undisclosed in the garb of the plastic scraps being transported through the aforesaid vehicle and as such, the appellant has exercised its quasi judicial powers and after due process of law, levied penalty of Rs.90,000/-. Thereafter, one Raj Kumar has made an anonymous complaint, alleging that metallic scrap was being transported by the said vehicle, but the appellant only levied penalty treating that to be only 2.5 MT of goods of metallic scrap rather than imposing penalty on the entire goods as metallic scrap.

(8) Shri Singh has further submitted that except the name of the complainant, the complaint did not disclose any other particulars so as to ascertain the identity of the complainant. The respondents took cognizance on the said anonymous complaint and initiated disciplinary proceedings agai