Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
Naipal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Housing And Development Board Thru Secy. And Another - Respondents
Writ A. No. 2000885 of 2005
Decided On : 29-05-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 and 16 - Equality before law - Excessive Arbitrary - Held, Petitioner himself accepted charges against request awarded minor punishment which itself charges were proved against notice could not be served upon petitioner available in his office residence information petitioner - Court considered opinion that impugned order rightly been passed against petitioner and there is no illegality judgments relied upon by learned counsel petitioner do not help petitioner distinguishable to present facts and circumstances of case - Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Irshad Ali, J.)
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent(s).
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 29.07.2004 passed by respondent No.2 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition with a further prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay all benefits including post-retiral benefits to the petitioner.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:
| Sr. No. | Relevant Facts of the Case |
| a. | The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 08.07.1970. In the year 1982, he was confirmed on the said post. Subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer in U.P. Housing Development Board (for short, "Board"). |
| b. | In the year 1996, the State Government created a new district, namely, Ambedkar Nagar and the Board was given the work of constructing Collectorate Building. In pursuance thereof, a construction unit was established in the year 1996-97 and the petitioner was posted as Project Manager for the aforesaid unit. |
| c. | In the year 2002, an inspection was made by Sri R.N. Goel, Superintending Engineer, Lok Nirman Vibhag, U.P., who inspected the deposit work done by the petitioner as a Project Manager. The Superintending Engineer without seeking reply from the petitioner, submitted his report vide letter dated 27.07.2002 and recommended for initiation of departmental inquiry against the petitioner. |
| d. | On 27.07.2002, on the basis of said report departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was charge sheeted. In the charge sheet dated 30.07.2002, eight charges were levelled against the petitioner. |
| e. | When the petitioner did not find necessary documents enclosed along with charge sheet, vide letters dated 01.08.202 and 14.08.2002, he requested to supply necessary documents and demanded measurement books, PCR files. |
| f. | Vide letter dated 07.10.2002, the petitioner submitted reply to avoid the delay, however, he mentioned that in spite of repeated requests, no documents have been made available to him. |
| g. | Out of eight charges, two charges have been found proved against the petitioner. |
| h. | On 24.06.2004, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which was received by him on 01.07.2004 stipulating time of 15 days to submit reply along with relevant evidence. |
| i. | The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice on 07.07.2004 through registered post and requested to supply copy of enquiry report and conclusion report of the board. In this regard, he also moved a reminder on 14.07.2004. |
| j. | The petitioner received copy of inquiry report dated 22.04.2004 on 20.07.2004. Vide letter dated 19.07.2004, he was asked to submit reply within a week. |
| k. | A perusal of impugned order shows that reply of the petitioner was not submitted within time. |
| l. | The news that several officers of the Housing Board had been punished, was published in news paper on 25.06.2004. The petitioner was General Secretary of Engineer's Association and other directly recruited engineers. |
| m. | The Engineers Association Evam Diploma Engineers Association, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow given a protest letter signed by the General Secretaries that in case of the petitioner, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and reply of the same was awaited, even then the news had been published in daily news papers and has also been telecasted on TV channels. |
| n. | Just two days before petitioner's re |
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority do not violate Article 311; the standard for punishment must align with proven misconduct.
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
The court upheld the impugned punishment order as sustainable in the eyes of the law.
In disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the charged officer to disprove allegations, and adherence to natural justice is essential for valid outcomes.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
