1. Heard Ms. Maria Fatima, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel, who has accepted notices for the opposite party Nos.3 and 4.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the appellate order dated 31.8.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 and punishment order dated 31.8.2019 passed by the respondent No.3, punishing the petitioner, who is a Class-I Officer, serving on the post of Deputy Director (Construction) in Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Punishing Authority of any Class-I Officer in Mandi Parishad is the Board of Directors, whereas the impugned punishment order dated 31.8.2019 has been passed by the Director solely. Therefore, this order is not only illegal but the same is without jurisdiction.
More or less, the identical controversy has been considered by this Court in the writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.19358 (S/S) of 2019; Narendra Kumar Malik vs. State of U.P. & others and the order impugned has been stayed vide order dated 18.07.2019.
4. In the aforesaid order dated 18.07.2019, this Court has considered the interim order dated 27.05.2019 passed by this Court in writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.14992 (S/S) of 2019; Gopal Shankar vs. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow & others and that writ petition was finally allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure No.5).
5. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there is error apparent on the face of the impugned order, hence, this writ petition may be decided in terms of judgment and order dated 10.12.2020 passed by this Court in the case of Gopal Shankar (Supra).
6. On the other hand, Sri N.C. Mehtrotra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3040 (S/S) of 2021 (Atar Singh Vs. State of U.P.) is the order wherein this Court proceeded to consider that whether the impugned order of dismissal is wholly without jurisdiction or not. He submits that ratio of the judgment is not disputed and the case of the petitioner is also of similar nature.
7. After having heard the contention advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.
8. On perusal, it is evident that the order of punishment was challenged in the departmental appeal, wherein also the order of punishment has been affirmed. Once this Court on examination, has found that the rules applicable to the case of the petitioner prescribes the appointing/ disciplinary authority to be Board of Management and the order on the said basis has been set aside on the ground of jurisdiction then the order of appellate authority wherein no consideration has been made in this regard, also cannot be sustained.
9. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 31.8.2019 whereby the authority, who is not competent to pass the punishment order, has passed the impugned punishment order, and such legal defect may not be improved by filing counter affidavit, therefore, the impugned punishment order dated 31.8.2019 may not sustain any longer in the eyes of law, hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the impugned punishment order dated 31.8.2019 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated 31.8.2020 is also quashed.
11. Consequences to follow.
12. It is always open for the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.
13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 Gautam