Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55630 of 2008 Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Sharma Respondent :- Nagar Palika Parishad, Sardhana Meerut & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Rajendra Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Amit.Malik,Yogesh Singh
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Rajendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner was working as Naib Kar Evam Rajasva Moharir on a Class IV post with the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sardhana, Meerut.
By the instant writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 03.05.2007 passed by the second respondent-Appellate Authority/President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sardhana, Meerut affirming the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority / Executive Officer, whereby, penalty of reduction in time scale has been affirmed.
The inquiry and punishment of municipal board servants is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Board Servants (Inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Services) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'). Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on five charges vide charge sheet dated 18.09.1999, upon inquiry the service of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 16.10.2000. The order was affirmed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 21.11.2002. The petitioner assailed the orders in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5805 of 2003. This Court remanded the matter directing the Disciplinary Authority to provide opportunity and pass a fresh order. Pursuant thereof the third respondent Executive Officer/Disciplinary Authority after affording opportunity to the petitioner and upon perusal of the evidence, imposed major penalty, reducing the petitioner to lowest stage in time scale. The order was assailed in appeal before the second respondent under Rule 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Servants Appeal Rules 1967. The appellate authority affirmed the order, which is under challenge.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 03.05.2007 is a cryptic and non-speaking order. The grounds of appeal has not been considered nor discussed. In four sentence the order of the disciplinary authority has been affirmed without assigning reasons.
Further, it is urged that the penalty imposed is not commensurate to the guilt. In other words the penalty imposed is excessive. The charges do not pertain to loss or embezzlement nor any finding has been returned on that count.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meantime the applicant has attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2007 and has not received post retiral dues.
This fact is not being disputed by learned Counsel for the contesting respondent and submits that a fresh order on the quantum of punishment shall be passed by the appellate authority.
In view thereof, the impugned order dated 3.5.2007 passed by the second respondent is set aside and quashed. The matter is remitted to the second respondent to consider and impose lesser penalty upon the applicant than that imposed by the disciplinary authority by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. The order of the disciplinary authority dated 30.11.2006 shall stand modified to that extent.
The post retiral dues of the applicant shall be released within a period of three months thereafter from the passing of the order by the second respondent.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No cost.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 I.A.Siddiqui