Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18921 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dhirendra Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahipal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 06.09.2018:-
"An order dated 20th August, 2018 attaching the petitioner to Head Office and directing holding of disciplinary action against the petitioner is under challenge on various ground. Submission is that petitioner is being victimized and he is otherwise due to retire in February, 2019. It is also stated that the work of DUDA was specifically directed to be looked after by the competent authority, and therefore, in case petitioner has performed such work, there would be no illegality in it.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions. Put up in the additional cause list on 17.9.2018"
Learned standing counsel has obtained instructions, which is taken on record. It is clearly admitted to the respondents that petitioner had performed work in other department on the direction of Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), who was also the Project Director of District Urban Development Agency, dated 13.02.2018. It is further apparent that after petitioner's explanation was called in the matter, he has submitted his reply, stating that the work was performed by him on the directions of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue). It is also not disputed that no action is proposed against the concerned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) for having taken work from the petitioner.
The direction, to attach the petitioner, therefore, is wholly arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be right in contending that in case petitioner would not have complied with the directions of Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), then he would have suffered for in-subordination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner shall not perform any work of District Urban Development Agency despite direction of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), henceforth.
In such view of the matter, the order dated 20.08.2018, passed by the Director and Chief Engineer, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to perform work at the place where he substantively posted and discharge the work which is assigned to him.
It goes without saying that, however, the petitioner shall not perform any work of District Urban Development Agency henceforth.
The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 Amit Mishra