Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1 and files vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned standing counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.
This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Jail Administration and Reforms as well as Upper Police Maha Nideshak/Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms challenging the judgment and award dated 11.4.2019 passed in Claim Petition No. 948 of 2018 (Dr. Vinay Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition quashing the impugned punishment order dated 4.10.2016, however, with liberty to the Department to proceed a fresh in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the respondent no. 1.
As per facts as set out in the writ petition, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent no. 1 with regard to certain allegations. The respondent no. 1 did not file any reply to the show cause notice dated 16.12.2014. The competent authority as such proceeded to award the punishment of censure entry to the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 4.10.2016. The respondent no. 1 thereafter filed appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.4.2018. It was thereafter that the respondent no. 1 filed claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal challenging the punishment order dated 4.10.2016 as well as appellate order dated 27.4.2018. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties has allowed the claim petition and quashed the punishment order dated 4.10.2016 and appellate order dated 27.4.2018 with liberty to proceed a fresh. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said order.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in coming to conclusion that opportunity was not provided to the respondent no. 1 before award of the punishment. The learned Tribunal has wrongly quashed the punishment order dated 4.10.2016 as well as the appellate order dated 27.4.2018 and has directed the competent authority to proceed a fresh giving opportunity to the respondent no. 1. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment dated 6.9.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4888 of 2005; Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and others, particularly paragraph 23, in order to assert that in the enquiry the respondent no. 1 had not disclosed as to what prejudice has been caused to him in case certain documents were not provided to him.
It is submitted that it was necessary for the delinquent employee i.e., respondent no. 1 to point out the prejudice caused to him in case certain documents which were though relevant in the enquiry but were not provided to him.
On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, leaned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that first of all the impugned punishment order which was challenged before the learned Tribunal was with regard to minor punishment for which a show cause notice was issued to the respondent no. 1. He had made a request for providing certain documents in order to submit his proper reply. Few documents were provided, however, all the documents were not provided to respondent no. 1, as such, he was prevented from submitting an effective reply to the show cause notice. The competent authority, however, proceeded to award the punishment of century entry to the respondent no. 1. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered in detail the submissions made by the parties and thereafter has come to conclusion that impugned punishment order was unreasoned and non-speaking. If the reply to show cause notice was not submitted by the respondent no. 1, it cannot be said that it demonstrates gross negligence and apathy towards his duties and responsibilities. It has, therefore, quashed the punishment order dated 4.10.2016 as well as appellate order dated 27.4.2018.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contends that since an opportunity to proceed a fresh after giving opportunity to delinquent employee (respondent no. 1) has been provided by the learned Tribunal, as such, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is misconceived and liable to be dismissed with cost.
We have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the record.
It is to be noted that vide punishment order dated 4.10.2016 punishment of censure entry was awarded to the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1, feeling aggrieved, had filed appeal against the punishment order which too was dismissed by the appellate authority. The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition preferred by the respondent no. 1 has come to conclusion that so far as holding respondent no. 1 guilty for not giving reply to show cause notice is concerned, respondent no. 1 cannot be punished. Non-submission of reply by a delinquent cannot be treated to be dereliction from duty or carelessness. The punishment order is non-speaking and unreasoned. It was based on preliminary enquiry and ex-parte. The learned Tribunal, therefore, has quashed the order dated 4.10.2016 as well as the appellate order dated 27.4.2018 and has made it open to the competent authority to proceed a fresh giving opportunity to the respondent no. 1.
So far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and others (supra) relied by the counsel for the petitioners, particularly paragraph 23, is concerned, the Apex Court while deciding the said case has taken into consideration its judgment in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors.; (1993) 4 SCC 727 wherein the Court has held that unless and until it is shown that prejudice has been caused it cannot be said that the inquiry proceeding is vitiated or that there is any violation of principles of natural justice.
In the present case, the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition filed by the respondent no. 1 has come to conclusion that the impugned punishment order was not reasoned and non-speaking and the reason on which the respondent no. 1 has been awarded impugned punishment of censure entry is not sustainable, as such, the judgment relies by the petitioners is of no assistance to them.
We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal.
The writ petition as such deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage.
However, before parting with the judgment, we must record our displeasure in the manner in which the State Government through Principal Secretary, Jail Administration and Reforms as well as Upper Police Maha Nideshak/Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms has chosen to file the present writ petition challenging the impugned judgment.
It is to be noted that merely a minor punishment of censure entry was awarded to the delinquent employee. Moreover, the learned Tribunal while quashing the said order has given an opportunity to the petitioners to proceed a fresh giving opportunity to the delinquent employee, as such, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners by the impugned judgment.
Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on a query being put by the Court has informed that the petitioners were advised that there is no good ground to challenge the impugned judgment, however, a permission to contest was granted by the State Government, as such, it was necessary to file the writ petition.
We are surprised to note that how in such matters the permission to contest is granted by the State Government without properly going through the record. The authorities who are concerned with the grant of permission to contest shall be careful in granting the permission to contest and must understand as to whether any reason or good ground exists to contest the matter and only thereafter the permission to contest shall be granted. Such petitions unnecessarily waste the precious time of the Court which is not proper.
We hope that the authorities are careful in future.
Copy of this order shall be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law/Legal Remembrance and to the Principal Secretary of the Department concerned.
The writ petition is dismissed. We restrain ourselves from imposing any cost.
[Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.] Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Santosh/-