Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anant Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned removal order dated 06.07.2019, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition could not have been passed by the respondents inasmuch as during the course of inquiry the petitioner had stated before the Inquiry Officer on 31.12.2005 that he may be imposed with any penalty but he should not be removed from service as he had rendered approximately 19 years of service on the post of Messenger. Taking this into consideration the disciplinary authority had passed an order dated 31.12.2005, a copy of which is annexure 22 to the petition by which the petitioner had been imposed penalty of withdrawal of 15 increments. Upon a challenge being raised to the said order, this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.05.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition has set aside the punishment order after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P and Ors reported in (2012) 5 SCC 242 that where a punishment is not prescribed under the rules the same cannot be awarded. However, this Court left it open for the respondents to impose any other punishment as provided under the Rules.
In pursuance thereof, the respondents have removed the petitioner from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the respondents themselves while passing the earlier order dated 31.12.2005 have considered the plea of the petitioner of imposing any punishment except the punishment of removal from service and thereafter proceeded to impose a punishment which has been set aside by this Court and liberty had been given by this Court then they could not have validly imposed the order of removal. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ran Singh Vs. State of Harayana and ors reported in (1998) 8 SCC 738.
Sri Anant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents takes a preliminary objection of the petitioner having the alternative remedy of appeal against the order of removal dated 06.07.2019. However, this Court proceeding to consider the case on merits taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances as have been enumerated above and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Singh (supra).
Sri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instruction as to whether any other punishment can be imposed upon the petitioner taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances.
List this case after two weeks as fresh.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Pachhere/-