High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
State Of U.P. & Others v. Ishrat Nasim Siddiqui - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 963 of 2006  RD-AH 20508 (4 December 2006)
Special Appeal No. (963) of 2006
State of U.P. & Ors.
Ishrat Nasim Siddiqui
Hon. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6th January, 2006 passed by the learned Judge of this Court by which the order dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect and the order for recovery of Rs.1,25,432.36 were quashed. The respondents were also directed to release the entire pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months.
A perusal of the judgment and order indicates that after the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report on 24th September, 1992 in respect of the disciplinary proceedings which had been initiated on the basis of the charge sheet dated 28th November, 1996, the disciplinary authority issued a notice dated 14th October, 1998 to the respondent-employee which was received by him on 5th December, 1998. A communication was sent by him making complaints regarding the non-availability of the record for inspection but instead of replying to the said communication, an order was passed imposing the aforesaid punishments. The learned Judge after recording a finding that proper opportunity had not been given by the disciplinary authority allowed the Writ Petition with the directions aforesaid.
Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that if there was any fault in the order passed by the disciplinary authority, then the learned Judge should have directed for proceeding with the proceedings from that stage.
We find considerable force in the submissions advanced by the learned Standing Counsel. The Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 727 has also observed that in such circumstances the inquiry should be ordered to be proceeded with from the stage at which the fault was found.
Learned counsel for the respondent has not able to dispute this proposition. He has, however, submitted that since there has been a considerable delay in the matter, the Court may fix a time duration within which the authorities may pass the final orders afresh after giving proper opportunity to the respondents.
In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and order dated 6th January, 2006 is modified to the extent that the disciplinary authority shall give now a proper opportunity to the respondent to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 14th October, 1998 and after considering the reply, if any, filed by the respondent-employee the disciplinary authority shall pass an appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date the reply is filed by the respondent employee. The Department shall permit the inspection within two weeks from the submission of the certified copy of this order and the respondent employee shall file the reply within two weeks from such inspection.
The Special Appeal succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.