Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4339 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Tiwari(Ac) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Mohan Saggi,Shri Ram Pandey
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. Petitioner was terminated from service on account of continued absence from duty. The order in that regard was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 47282 of 2005 and after elaborate hearing the writ petition was allowed by following order passed on 10.8.2008:-
“10. In the case in hand, since petitioner's service was admittedly terminated on account of his alleged unauthorized absence, I have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid termination is penal and therefore, petitioner could not have been terminated without giving any opportunity or holding a departmental inquiry. The impugned order, therefore, cannot sustain.
11. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 06.03.1997, 04.06.1997, 08.01.1998, 24.04.1998 and 13.07.2004 are hereby set aside.
12. However, this order shall not preclude respondents from passing fresh order after holding disciplinary inquiry in accordance with law. The question of arrears of salary shall be governed by ultimate order passed in disciplinary inquiry.
13. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.”
2. The aforesaid judgment of this Court has attained finality. The respondents thereafter have proceeded to pass two orders in the matter. The first order is styled as show cause notice/charge-sheet, dated 16.1.2019, in which the allegation of absence has been made a charge in respect of which petitioner's explanation has been called till 21.1.2019 by the Enquiry Committee. It is admitted that petitioner has submitted a reply to this show cause notice on 21.1.2019. Thereafter the respondents have passed the order impugned dated 20th February, 2019, as per which petitioner's representation in terms of order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 47282 of 2005 has been rejected. It is this order which is assailed in the present writ petition.
3. The order is questioned on the ground that no disciplinary enquiry has been conducted in terms of the liberty granted by this Court. It is submitted that neither petitioner was reinstated in service for holding of the enquiry nor has been paid salary/subsistence allowance. It is also submitted that no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted. It is urged that the General Manager has passed the order impugned by virtually treating the order to be an order disposing of petitioner's representation.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the action of the respondents.
5. I have heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amar Nath Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the other respondents.
6. Perusal of the record would go to show that the General Manager has not been able to understand as to what was expected of him under the order of this Court. This Court while allowing the earlier writ petition had clearly set aside the order of termination. Liberty, however, was granted to the respondents to hold disciplinary enquiry in accordance with law and question of arrears of salary was to be governed by the ultimate order to be passed in disciplinary enquiry.
7. It was imperative for the respondents to have first reinstated the petitioner even for the purposes of conducting the disciplinary enquiry, which has not been done. No proper enquiry has otherwise been conducted in the matter, as would be evident from the record.
8. The order impugned shows complete lack of understanding on part of the authority concerned. Instead of passing an appropriate order after holding disciplinary enquiry, as was made permissible under the orders of this Court, he has merely rejected petitioner's representation. There was no direction issued for the employer to consider petitioner's representation. By rejecting petitioner's representation the authority concerned has virtually reiterated the order of termination which has already been quashed by this Court. Apart from showing complete lack of understanding and non- application of mind on part of officer concerned, the order impugned can even be termed as contemptuous in nature. For all such reasons, this Court finds that the order impugned dated 20th February, 2019 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The respondents shall immediately reinstate the petitioner and start paying salary to him from 10.8.2018, when the writ petition was allowed by this Court. It would be open for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension for the purposes of holding of the enquiry. The enquiry, however, must be conducted as is contemplated in law. Such an enquiry would be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The question of arrears of salary etc., would abide by the outcome of the fresh order, as has already been held by this Court on 10.8.2018.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Ranjeet Sahu