Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14322 of 2019 Petitioner :- Gajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Kumar Sharma,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 18.9.2019:-
"An earlier Writ Petition No. 6653 of 2019, filed by the petitioner was allowed vide following orders passed on 29.04.2019:
"Petitioner is posted as Computer Operator and was attached to the MANREGA Cell in district Aligarh. It appears that a show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 7.12.2018 on the charge that even without any construction made amount running into lacs have been paid towards wages under MANREGA scheme. Petitioner has submitted reply to show cause notice on 7.1.2019, stating that he was not the appropriate authority, nor he has issued any order in that regard. In his reply, petitioner has further stated that bills were sanctioned by the Accountant and the Programme Officer in which there was no infirmity.
However, the District Magistrate in his capacity as the District Programme Officer has passed order impugned dated 29.1.2019, discontinuing petitioner's engagement in the scheme itself. The order is also challenged on the ground that petitioner's reply has not been dealt with at all and that in the preliminary enquiry, which was conducted, neither petitioner was associated with it, nor was given any opportunity to participate. It is also submitted that since stigma is attached, due procedure was expected to be followed by the authorities, but it is found lacking.
Although learned Standing Counsel has tried to defend the order impugned, but from its perusal no consideration could be shown to petitioner's reply. In such circumstances, learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities be permitted to revisit the issue.
From the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this Court finds that neither petitioner's reply has been dealt with nor any reason has been assigned to discard reply of the petitioner. Considering the fact that petitioner was not otherwise associated in enquiry etc., it would be appropriate to dispose off this writ petition directing the District Magistrate concerned to examine petitioner's grievance and to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. In order to facilitate consideration of cause, afresh, and also for the reasons that principles of natural justice have otherwise shown not to have been complied with, the order dated 29.1.2019 stands quashed.
Writ petition stands allowed."
Records reveal that thereafter a fresh order has been passed by the District Magistrate/District Programme Coordinator, Aligarh on 26.06.2019, which is impugned.
The order is assailed on the ground that no reasons have been assigned to discard the petitioner's reply submitted to the show cause notice and the order is absolutely cryptic in nature. It is also stated that once the earlier order had already been quashed by this Court, the authority could not have revived the same and that the order is, therefore, contemptuous in nature.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions in the matter.
Post as fresh on 30th September 2019."
Learned Standing Counsel has obtain instructions from the Block Development Officer concerned, which is taken on record. Alongwith the instructions the respondents have placed before the Court the first order of the District Magistrate, as also the second order etc. The instructions furnished fails to answer the specific contention advanced on behalf of petitioner that his reply has not been taken note of before passing the order impugned.
Perusal of the order of the District Magistrate dated 26.6.2019 would go to show that after noticing the order of this Court the allegations have been noticed, and after referring to issuance of show cause notice a finding has been returned that petitioner's explanation is not found to be satisfactory and cannot be accepted. The order is absolutely cryptic, inasmuch as it neither refers to the petitioner's explanation nor gives any reason as to why such explanation is not liable to be accepted. Law is settled that reason is the soul of the order and in its absence the order itself becomes lifeless. Once this Court had earlier directed the authorities to take appropriate decision, it would be expected that petitioner's reply would be examined and after specifying the reasons not to accept it, the authorities may proceed, but it has not been done. Orders impugned dated 26.6.2019 and 29.1.2019, therefore, cannot be sustained and stands quashed.
Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Liberty stands reserved to the respondents to pass a fresh order, in light of the observations made above.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Anil