Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Irshad Ali, J.
Dr. S.C. Asthana – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secy. Medi.And Hel. And Another – Respondents
WRIT -A No. - 2000264 of 2000
Decided On : 14-07-2023
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rules 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) - Disciplinary proceedings - Writ petition - Held, Disciplinary proceedings held by State authorities by and large do not adhere to well settled principles of law in matter of holding inquiry - Amounts to a dereliction of duty embodied under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Irregularities in enquiry leave enough scope for indiscipline and the guilty go unpunished in all those cases, where procedural violations shield their misconduct - Discrepancies also prolong disciplinary action contrary to objects of service jurisprudence - Dormant role on part of State not to have a trained staff for disciplinary enquiry cannot be viewed lightly in every case - Disciplinary action must culminate into reformation and discipline - Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrtora, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondent State.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the senior scale of Rs.3000-4500/-to the petitioner with effect from 1984, time scale of Rs.3700-5000/-w.e.f. 1990 after completing 16 years of service with a further prayer to release all promotions of the petitioner upto the post of Joint Director with effect from his juniors have been promoted. A further prayer has been made to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.04.1996 awarding censure entry and punishment to the petitioner and order dated 09.12.1998, whereby leave of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:
| S. No. | Relevant Facts of the Case |
| a. | The petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer on 21.08.1974 in Provincial Medical and Health Services on ad-hoc basis. |
| b. | In the year 1975, the petitioner appeared before the U.P. Public Service Commission and his appointment was approved by the Commission. |
| c. | The petitioner moved a representation in the year 1976 to the Government for being enrolled / registered in the panel of experts of Foreign Assignments Scheme of Govt. of India. |
| d. | On 29.06.1978, the petitioner's candidature for being impaneled in the panel of experts in Foreign Assignment Scheme was accepted and he was registered as an Expert and an agreement between the petitioner and authorities of Gongola, State of Nigeria was entered into. |
| e. | On 27.01.1981, a no-objection certificate was issued by the Additional Director (Administration) for the purpose of passport relating to the petitioner's stay in Nigeria. |
| f. | On 11.02.1981, the petitioner was sanctioned earned leave for 15 days. |
| g. | On 16.02.1981, the petitioner was relieved from Unnao. |
| h. | On 18.03.1981, the petitioner proceeded to Nigeria after informing the Director. |
| i. | On 16.10.1984, a letter was issued to the Superintendent of Hospital at Unnao by the State Government stating that the petitioner should submit his joining in PHMS within one month. |
| j. | On 09.11.1984, family of the petitioner received the letter dated 16.10.1984. |
| k. | On 17.11.1984, wife of the petitioner sent a letter to the petitioner at Nigeria informing about the said letter and requested to the Joint Director for grant of time. |
| l. | On 10.01.1985, the petitioner on receipt of information, returned back from Nigeria and submitted his joining, which was accepted but he was not given posting. |
| m. | On 20.03.1985, the State Government wrote a letter to the Director stating that the petitioner may be posted as Medical Officer in any district. |
| n. | On 12.04.1985, the petitioner was posted in Health Directorate at Lucknow as Medical Officer (Reserved Duty). |
| o. | On 15.04.1985, the petitioner joined his posting place at Directorate. |
| p. | On 07.07.1988, the State Government directed the Director (Administration) that since the period of petitioner's stay in Nigeria has been regularized, the amount of GPF, Insurance and Pension contribution for the said period be got deposited from the petitioner. |
| q. | On 07.10.1989, the Joint Director informed the Government that the petitioner had deposited the amount of GPF & GIS. |
| r. | On 31.08.1990, the petitioner was served with a charge - sheet. |
| s. | On 10.09.1990, the petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge - sheet. |
| t. | On 28.10.1991, the petitioner was served a show cause notice to explai |
The punishment imposed must be in accordance with the prescribed list of punishments under the relevant rules and should not deviate from the statutory provisions.
The doctrine of proportionality must be applied in determining the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, and the punishment must be commensurate with the fault committed.
Disciplinary action must consider proportionality of punishment in light of circumstances, including health issues, and proper procedure must be followed to ensure fair treatment.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in the punishment order and the importance of considering willful absence and proportionality of punishment in disciplinary matters.
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
