High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Prakash Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 68666 of 2005  RD-AH 6600 (29 November 2005)
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
Sri Amit Sthalekar, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.2 has produced the original records before this Court today pertaining to the order of punishment imposed upon Sri Ram Prakash Vyas (the present petitioner) as well as resignation tendered by Sri Ram Prakash Vyas. From the records It is apparent that under letter of the Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court Judicature at Allahabad, departmental proceedings were directed to be initiated against Sri Ram Prakash Vyas for his having applied for grant of dealership of a Government Oil Company without seeking prior permission from the District Judge. On the letter of the Registrar General of this Court, a departmental proceedings were initiated and Sri Ashok Srivastava, Additional District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The departmental enquiry so initiated was completed on 2nd April, 2005 when enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The then District Judge is alleged to have a made a note on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the following effect " Warned for future. Entry be made in his character roll." On record is an order passed by the then District Judge dated 11th May, 2005 where under the exact entry which was directed to be recorded in the character roll of the petitioner has been formulated. It is not in dispute that till date the order of punishment, which was proposed to be passed against the delinquent employee was not communicated to him nor there is anything on record to establish that any adverse entry/ warning was recorded in the character roll of the delinquent employee even after to 11th May, 2005. During this period Sri Ram Prakash Vyas (the present petitioner) is alleged to have submitted his resignation letter dated 19th April, 2005 with a further prayer that the notice period may also be waived by the appointing authority. On the same day i.e. 19.4.05, the then District Judge made a note on the letter of the petitioner, which reads as follows:
"Office to report about any dues upon the official. O.C. (Admn.) to record about propriety of the acceptance of the resignation."
On 19th April, 2005, itself the Assistant Accounts Clerk, Librarian and Sri Ram Prakash Vyas himself have made a note at the back of the application that there are no dues against the concerned employee. On the same day the Officer-in-Charge (Special Judicial Officer, S.C. & S.T. Act), submitted a report that since Sri Ram Prakash Vyas has resigned out of his sweet will, the notice period may be waived and the resignation be accepted. The report bears an endorsement 'of seen' duly signed by the District Judge, Badaun. On the very next date i.e. 20th April, 2005 the then learned District Judge, Badaun is alleged to have issued an order dated 20th April, 2005 accepting the resignation tendered by Sri Ram Prakash Vyas (petitioner) with rider that notice period as contemplated by Rule 4(4) of the U.P. Government Servant Resignation Rules, 2000 is being waived.
On record is a letter dated 25th April, 2005 of the Manager of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. seeking verification of the correctness of the acceptance of the resignation tendered by Sri Ram Prakash Vyas addressed to the District Judge. On 30th April, 2005 the learned District Judge has communicated his verification qua the acceptance of the resignation tendered by Sri Ram Prakash Vyas.
Learned counsel for the petitioner after obtaining the instruction from his client, has made a statement that he is not aware as to on which date the dealership has been granted by the Government Oil Company.
Prima facie this Court is satisfied the undue haste shown in the acceptance of the resignation tendered by Sri Ram Prakash Vyas and communication to the same to him within less than 24 hours, establishes a link between Sri Ram Prakash Vyas and the officers of the Judgeship at Badaun. Even before the departmental proceedings has been closed in accordance with the statutory rules applicable acceptance of resignation after granting waiver to the notice period, under Rule 5 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Resignation Rules, 2000 raises suspicion. The appointing authority had a discretion to refuse the resignation, if any, enquiry is contemplated or is pending against a government employee. Since on record there is no order for closing the departmental proceedings in accordance with law i.e. after the communication of order of punishment upon the delinquent employee as on 20th April, 2005, the resignation tendered by Sri Ram Prakash Vyas could not have been accepted nor notice period could be waived by the District Judge without recording specific reasons for the same.
Let the office place the original records before the Administrative Judge of the Judgeship of Badaun along with this order for suitable action, as may be necessary in the facts of the present case within three weeks from today.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks time to file rejoinder affidavit.
The original records have been returned to Sri Amit Sthalekar, Advocate today in the Court.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.