Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23293 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner was regularized in service in terms of an order dated 4 May 2017. From the record it appears that a complaint in respect of his regularization was received and upon further enquiries, it was found by the respondents that the petitioner was not eligible to be regularized under the 2016 Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Certificate of Working which stands appended at page -22 of the paper book to submit that he was in service prior to 31 December 2001 which is the relevant date under the 2016 Rules. More fundamentally, it is his submission that the impugned order which proceeds to cancel the order of regularization has come to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was neither confronted with the complaint nor were the results of the internal enquiries which are alleged to have been undertaken disclosed to him.
Learned Standing Counsel, who initially sought to support the order impugned does not dispute that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is therefore an admitted position that the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing and to show cause against the proposed action of cancellation of the order of regularization dated 4 May 2017. The order does, undisputedly, visit the petitioner with serious civil consequences.
Faced with this situation, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the ends of justice would merit the matter being remitted to the second respondent who may be granted liberty to evaluate the entire case afresh and proceed in the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly and with the consent of parties, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7 September 2018 is hereby quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remanded to respondent No. 3 for a decision afresh. The Court further directs that the said respondent shall proceed in the matter after affording due opportunity of hearing and representation to the petitioner. The exercise of evaluation on remand shall be completed by the third respondent with expedition and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order along with a representation. The regularization and continuance of the petitioner however shall abide by the fresh decision which the third respondent shall now proceed to take.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)