Shailesh Kumar Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Shailesh Kumar Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 07, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/475942

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/475942
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: V.M. Sahai, J.
Decided On: Apr 07, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 11737 of 1997
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - dismissal of Lekhpal - ground of dismissal not attending the meeting held by Sub-Divisional Magistrate - enquiry made and charges proved - order is against principal of natural justice - Sub-Divisional Magistrate complainant as well as punishing authority - held, dismissal not justified and order for reins...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shailesh Kumar Lal

Advocate B.N. Tiwari, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C. and;S.P. Singh, Adv.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Union of India v. Ramzan Khan
Reported In: 1999(2)AWC1528; [1999(82)FLR546]

Excerpt

service - dismissal of lekhpal - ground of dismissal not attending the meeting held by sub-divisional magistrate - enquiry made and charges proved - order is against principal of natural justice - sub-divisional magistrate complainant as well as punishing authority - held, dismissal not justified and order for reinstatement made-petition allowed. - - 3 (annexure-9 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 18.12.1996 passed by respondent no......the correctness of these orders has been challenged in this petition.2. i have heard shri b. n. tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and shri s. p. singh.standing counsel appearing for the respondents.3. the counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of dismissal is liable to be quashed as the inquiry was contrary to the procedure provided in the rules and the order is against principles of natural justice. the learned counsel submitted that the sub-divisional magistrate being the complainant, he could not act as punishing authority. both the submissions appear to be correct. in arjun choubey it. union of india, air 1984 sc 1356, the apex court has held that when the complainant and punishing authority are same, the order is contrary to principles of natural justice. it is one of the basic principles of law that one cannot be judge of his own cause. therefore, the dismissal order which has been affirmed by the respondents cannot be upheld. as regards the second ground, it is not disputed in the counter-affidavit that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied, therefore the principle laid down in union of india v. ramzan khan, air 1991 sc 471 applied. however, since the impugned order are liable to be quashed on the first ground, it is not necessary to say any thing further.4. the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. the dismissal order passed by respondent no. 4 dated 30.4.1990 (annexure-3 to the writ petition) and order dated 21.9.1990 passed by respondent no. 3 (annexure-9 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 18.12.1996 passed by respondent no. 2 (annexure-11 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits of service. within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.5. there shall be no order as tocosts.

Full Judgment

V. M. Sahai, J.

1. The petitioner was Lekhpal. He was suspended by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sakaldiba. Varanasi on 6.12.1989. He had not participated in the meeting held by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 5.12.1989. He was charge-sheeted. The inquiry officer held that the charges were substantiality. Its report was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 30.4.1990 and he dismissed the petitioner from service. The appeal and representation made by the petitioner to Additional District Magistrate and Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi were dismissed. The correctness of these orders has been challenged in this petition.

2. I have heard Shri B. N. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. P. Singh.standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of dismissal is liable to be quashed as the inquiry was contrary to the procedure provided in the rules and the order is against principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate being the complainant, he could not act as punishing authority. Both the submissions appear to be correct. In Arjun Choubey it. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1356, the Apex Court has held that when the complainant and punishing authority are same, the order is contrary to principles of natural justice. It is one of the basic principles of law that one cannot be judge of his own cause. Therefore, the dismissal order which has been affirmed by the respondents cannot be upheld. As regards the second ground, It is not disputed in the counter-affidavit that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied, therefore the principle laid down in Union of India v. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 applied. However, since the impugned order are liable to be quashed on the first ground, it is not necessary to say any thing further.

4. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The dismissal order passed by respondent No. 4 dated 30.4.1990 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and order dated 21.9.1990 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 18.12.1996 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits of service. within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

5. There shall be no order as tocosts.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Shailesh Kumar Lal vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Service Same Judge V.M. Sahai, J.

Service