Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27005 of 1996 Petitioner :- Devendra Singh Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner II Jhansi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- U.K.Saxena, Dr.S.B.Singh, Hari Om Tewari, Rajesh Pachauri Counsel for Respondent :- S.C., Hariom Tiwari, Harshit Pathak, Anurag Pathak
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner contended that Ram Prakash Singh, who was issued notice under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 on 18.01.1999, died in July, 1994. No notice has ever been issued to petitioner and instead, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as “Prescribed Authority”) passed order dated 30.12.1994 which has been confirmed in appeal by Additional Commissioner (II), Jhansi Division, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Authority”). Apparently, both the orders are against dead person and, therefore, it is nullity.
2. When questioned, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that such person has died in July, 1994 and also could not show as to how such orders could have been passed against dead person in December, 1994 and June, 1996.
3. In Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2011
(2) ADJ 643, this Court held :-
“ The Court feel pity on the officers of Nagar Nigam, Bareilly in continuing with the departmental enquiry against a person who was already died and this information of death was well communicated to the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority. They proceeded with enquiry and passed impugned orders against a dead person. This is really height of ignorance of principles of service laws and shows total ignorance on the part of the officers of Nagar Nigam in respect to the disciplinary matters. This Court expresses its displeasure with such state of affairs and such a level of unawareness on the part of the respondents who are responsible in establishment matters. They have to be condemned in strong words for their total lack of knowledge of such administrative matters on account whereof legal heirs of poor deceased employee have suffered.
2. This writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Besides, in my view, here is a fit case where an exemplary cost ought to be imposed against Nagar Nigam, Bareilly for such a mindless illegal act on their part. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the Corporation, however, very fairly said that authorities may have committed a serious error in passing orders despite death of the employee concerned, but had no mala fide on their part, therefore, this Court may show its leniency in the matter of imposing heavy cost.”
4. In view thereof, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.12.1994 passed by Prescribed Authority and order dated 29.06.1996 passed by Appellate Authority are hereby set aside.
5. However, this order shall not preclude respondents from passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Siddhant Sahu