Back
2023 Supreme(All) 1260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Masood Ahmad Khan – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 10788 of 2023
Decided On : 19-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Siddharth Khare.
For the Respondents: Manas Bhargava, Nipun Singh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a disciplinary inquiry to establish a charge against an employee, and the reviewability of the Lokayukta's order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Suspension - Jurisdiction - Manipulation of Date of Birth - Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 - [SUSPENSION] - [Jurisdiction] - [Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975, Section 17(2)] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Nagar Palika Parishad to suspend the petitioner and proceed against him on the charge of manipulating his date of birth in the service book. The court highlighted the previous order quashing the termination of the petitioner's services and directing his reinstatement, and the lack of liberty granted to the respondent to proceed afresh on the same charge. The court also emphasized the need for a disciplinary inquiry to establish the charge against the petitioner, based on evidence led before the Inquiry Officer. The court clarified that the Lokayukta's order could be reviewed under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against an order of suspension from service pending inquiry passed by the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nethaur, District Bijnor. The petitioner's services had earlier been terminated, but the court quashed the termination order and directed his reinstatement due to the absence of an inquiry and lack of cutting or overwriting in the service book regarding the petitioner's date of birth.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Nagar Palika Parishad lacked jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner and proceed against him on the same charge without holding a disciplinary inquiry to establish the charge of manipulating his date of birth in the service book. The court also clarified that the Lokayukta's order could be reviewed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Nagar Palika Parishad to suspend the petitioner and proceed against him on the charge of manipulating his date of birth in the service book, and the reviewability of the Lokayukta's order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Nagar Palika Parishad lacked jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner without holding a disciplinary inquiry to establish the charge of manipulating his date of birth in the service book. The court also clarified that the Lokayukta's order could be reviewed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court directed the inquiry against the petitioner to be concluded within three months, with the petitioner being paid his subsistence allowance regularly during the period of suspension. The petitioner was also given the option to move the court again if there was a delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings beyond the specified period.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against an order of suspension from service pending inquiry dated 21.06.2023 passed against the petitioner by the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nethaur, District Bijnor.
2. In order to set the record straight, it is observed at the outset that the petitioner had mistakenly filed, along with the writ petition, a copy of the suspension order relating to another employee, also dated 21.06.2023, in place of the impugned suspension order. This was the result of a clerical error and the error being technical, was permitted to be rectified by bringing on record a copy of the impugned order (relating to the petitioner) vide order dated 17.07.2023. The said order has been brought on record through a supplementary affidavit dated 18.07.2021.
3. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kauntey Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned Counsel representing the Lokayukta, Uttar Pradesh.
4. The submission of Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate is that the impugned order, ordering suspension and initiation of departmental proceedings passed by the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nethaur, Bijnor is without jurisdiction, because on identical grounds, the services of the petitioner had earlier been terminated by the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nethaur, Bijnor vide an order of 16th September, 2019, which was quashed by this Court on ground that no departmental inquiry was held, and further that there was no cutting or overwriting regarding the petitioner’s date of birth entered in his service book, as evident from an extract of the service book brought on record with the counter affidavit. It is pointed out by Mr. Khare that this Court not only quashed the earlier order terminating the petitioner’s services, but also recorded a finding that there is no cutting or overwriting evident from the extract of the petitioner’s service book brought on record along with the counter affidavit. On the foot of this fact, it is urged by the learned Senior Advocate that this Court proceeded to quash the order dated 16.09.2019 terminating the petitioner’s services not only on ground of denial of opportunity or the absence of an inquiry being held against him, but also on the basis of a finding about the charge that in the extract of the service book brought on record by the respondent themselves, there is no cutting or overwriting to be found about the petitioner’s date of birth. This Court, by the judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 passed in Writ (A) No. 15338 of 2019, quashed the order dated 16.09.2019, terminating the petitioner’s services and directed his reinstatement, with all consequential benefits. It is urged that no liberty was granted to the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad to proceed afresh on the same charge against the petitioner. Therefore, according to Mr. Khare, there is no jurisdiction with the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension and proceed against him on the same charge of manipulating his date of birth in the service book.
5. It appears that the present order of suspension is a sequel to a report dated 24.03.2023 submitted by the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh to the State Government on a complaint made by one Wasiuddin against Smt. Firoza Khatoon, the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nethaur, Bijnor, Dharmdev, the Executive Officer of the aforesaid Nagar Palika Parishad, the petitioner-Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Ghanshyam Singh, Tax Amin and Shabina Anjum, a Peon with the Nagar Palika Parishad. The findings of the Lokayukta at page no. 53 of the Paper Book, relating to the petitioner, carried in paragraph No. 11 (iii), read to the following effect:
¼3½ Jh elwn vgen ds 'kS{kf.kd vfHkys[k o lsok vfHkys[k esa vafdr tUefrfFk esa Li"V :i ls yxHkx 08 o"kZ dk vUrj gksus ds dkj.k mudh lsok,a fnukad 06-09-2019 dks lekIr dh x;hA
