Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59721 of 2014 Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Lal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against order dated 31.07.2014 passed by Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, respondent-1 rejecting IIIrd Assured Career Promotion (hereinafter referred to as 'ACP') of petitioner.
2. Petitioner has been denied benefit of IIIrd ACP by impugned order dated 31.7.2014 on the ground that he had committed certain irregularities in the auction of Cooperative Cold Storage, Ujhani, Distt. Badaun as is evident from report of Economic Offence Research Organization, when he was posted as Commissioner and District Assistant Registrar, Badaun and Competent authority has also granted sanction for taking cognizance vide office order no.- 50/49-2-2011- 145(82)/2010 dated 15.2.2011.
3. Counsel for petitioner submits that under Government Order dated 28.5.1997, promotion can be denied only on the ground when a prosecution in criminal case is pending and charge-sheet submitted in Court and not otherwise, hence, petitioner is entitled for promotion and impugned order is liable to quashed.
4. Arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner are wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, aforesaid Government Order dated 28.5.1997 is not applicable in the matter of ACP which is governed by separate Government Orders and Rules.
5. This Court confronted learned counsel for petitioner with the query, how and in what manner Government Order dated 28.5.1997 is applicable in the matter of grant of ACP to which learned counsel for petitioner could give no reply at all. Admittedly, sanction of prosecution of petitioner has been given by competent authority. In disciplinary enquiry, petitioner was found guilty of charges of committing irregularities in the auction of Cooperative Cold Storage, Ujhani, Distt. Badaun.
6. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that respondents have erred in law in denying IIIrd ACP to petitioner and, therefore, we find no reason to interfere with impugned order.
7. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Siddhant Sahu