Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42262 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vineeta Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jetendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner has made the following main prayers in the writ petition:-
"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to conduct fresh enquiry into the matter of appointment of the respondent no.4 in the department & to pass fresh order of dismissal of the respondent no.4.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to consider & decide the application dated 11.8.2018 filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.3 within the period fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
From a perusal of the contents of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner is the maternal grand daughter of the complainant Late Ram Dularey and late Ram Dularey had filed a complaint against fraud played by respondent no.4 in getting an appointment in the Department of Electricity, initially on the post of Koolie (Shramik), thereafter, being promoted on the post of Sub Station Operator. Late Ram Dularey pursued the matter till his death and some enquiry was conducted in pursuance of the said enquiry, the respondent no.4 was also terminated by an order dated 7.10.2008 and against order of termination, appeal was fiiled by respondent no.4, which appeal was rejected. He approached this Court in Writ A No. 31044 of 2016 (Santosh Vs. Kanpur Electrict Supply Company Limited and 2 others), in which this Court found technical defects in the enquiry concluded against the respondent no.4 and set aside the order of termination but left it open to the respondents to start the enquiry afresh from the stage where it stood vitiated. In pursuance of the order dated 4.1.2018, the respondent no.4 has been reinstated. Now the petitioner has approached this Court praying since that this Court has given liberty in earlier writ petition filed by respondent no.4 to KESCO to complete the enquiry in accordance with law, and the said enquiry should be completed.
This Court sitting in Service single jurisdiction has no authority in law to issue any such Mandamus as is prayed for, in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Ravi Kant