Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM VISHAL VERMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Vishal Verma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 51131 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 4441 (14 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.25

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.51131 of 2004

Ram Vishal Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Bala Krishna Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.  

       This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2004, passed by respondent no.2, Deputy Collector, Fatehpur, dismissing the petitioner from the post of Collection Amin, pursuant to the departmental inquiry conducted against him. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Collection Amin vide order dated 14.3.1980 issued by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur. The aforesaid appointment was confirmed w.e.f. 1.10.1980. vide order dated 14.10.1980 issued by the Deputy Collector, Bindki. The petitioner was issued a chargesheet on 15.5.2004 and after holding inquiry, the Deputy Collector Khaga has passed the impugned order of punishment removing the petitioner from service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of removal on the short ground that he was actually appointed by Collector and, therefore, could not have been removed from service by an authority subordinate in rank to the authority by which he was actually appointed and, therefore, the impugned order of removal is illegal being violative of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed in service by an order issued by the Collector and he is the authority higher in rank than the Deputy Collector. In other words, A Deputy Collector is an authority of subordinate rank to the Collector. It is also not disputed that subsequently, the petitioner was confirmed in service by the Deputy Collector. In my view, that would not change the factum that the petitioner was actually appointed in service by the Collector. Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India confers a right upon a government servant that he shall not be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Article 311(1) is reproduced as under:

   "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.--(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

        A perusal of Article 311(1) of the Constitution clearly shows that a person subordinate in rank to the authority who appointed a government servant shall not pass an order of dismissal or removal. The violation of the aforesaid provision would render the order of dismissal or removal unconstitutional and void. In Sampuran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1407, it was held that in view of Article 311(1) of the Consltitution removing authority cannot be inferior or subordinate in rank but if an order is passed by an authority of higher rank, then the order may not be invalidated under Article 311(1) of the Constitution. The Apex Court held :

"Art. 311(1) of the Constitution enjoins that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Under this Article the authority to remove should not be subordinate to that by which he was appointed."

         Therefore, constitutional protection available to a government servant , if infringed, it would vitiate the order since an order in violation of the provision of the Constitution would be void.

 In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.7.2004, passed by respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits except arrears of salary in respect whereto appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents in accordance with the applicable Rules. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

Dated: 14.3.2007

akn.51131-04


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.