Shamsher Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Shamsher Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 03, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483533

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/483533
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Binod Kumar Roy and;Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 03, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 30378 of 1995
Subject: Service

Case Summary

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

Service - blockage of pension - 25% of petitioner's pension blocked when found guilty of charges - Appellate Authority missed to record important findings - fundamental right of petitioner also violated by not providing submissions of inquiry - matters again sent to Appellate Authority for consideration. - U.P. ZAMI...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shamsher Singh

Advocate D.B. Kauser and ;N.K. Shukla, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate D.N. Misra, S.C. and ;P.K. Bisaria, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 1999(3)AWC2631; (1999)3UPLBEC1921

Excerpt

service - blockage of pension - 25% of petitioner's pension blocked when found guilty of charges - appellate authority missed to record important findings - fundamental right of petitioner also violated by not providing submissions of inquiry - matters again sent to appellate authority for consideration. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - 9. before parting, it is clarified that if the government succeeds in effectively replying the questions urged on behalf of the petitioner, then in that event what orders are required to be passed by the appellate authority need not be stated by us......any specified date for his appearance before him.5. sri. d. n. mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3, contended that the petitioner without any rhyme or reason impleaded him in his personal capacity and accordingly, this writ petition, should be dismissed with cost.6. the appellate authority considered the grievances in a cryptic manner in paragraph 3 of its order. unfortunately, the appellate authority missed to record any finding in regard to the question no. 4 quoted above. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellate decision is vitiated. the questions urged by sri bisaria are required to be considered by the appellate authority itself.7. mr. kauser. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. made no submission before us alleging personal mala fide against the respondent no. 3. accordingly, we expunge the name of the respondent no. 3 in so far as his personal capacity is concerned.8. in the result, this writ petition succeeds in part. the impugned appellate order, as contained in annexure-xvi. is quashed and the appeal is remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law.9. before parting, it is clarified that if the government succeeds in effectively replying the questions urged on behalf of the petitioner, then in that event what orders are required to be passed by the appellate authority need not be stated by us.10. in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we make no order as to cost.11. the office is directed to handover a copy of this order within one week to sri. p. k. bisaria, for its intimation to and follow-up action bythe appellate authority.

Full Judgment

Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.

1. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 9.12.1994 imposing the punishment of curtailing 25% of his pension after holding him guilty of the charges and the order dated 5.4,1995 dismissing his appeal preferred against the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure-XI and XVI respectively to this writ petition.

2. Having heard Sri Kauser, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. K. Bisaria.learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents at length, we are of the view that this writ petition, in the interest of justice, has to be allowed in part, as the appeal is required to be disposed of afresh for the reasons stated as under :

3. Eight charges were framed against the petitioner, which were found to be proved by the Inquiring Officer. His report was considered, accepted and the order dated 9.12.1994 was passed. From a perusal of the Impugned appellate order, it transpires that the Appellate Authority noted 13 grievances raised by the petitioner before it. One of the grievances, as noted by the Appellate Authority itself reads thus :

(In English Translation)

'Paragraph 4.--Inquiry Officer had not given him copies of the record nor had he given him opportunity of personal hearing.'

4. In this regard, we also note the submission of Sri. P. K. Bisaria. learned standing counsel that the grounds urged by the petitioner were vague inasmuch as it is not his specific case as to which document of the record was not given to him which has caused prejudice and that it is not his case before us that the Inquiry Officer had not fixed any Specified date for his appearance before him.

5. Sri. D. N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, contended that the petitioner without any rhyme or reason impleaded him in his personal capacity and accordingly, this writ petition, should be dismissed with cost.

6. The Appellate Authority considered the grievances in a cryptic manner in paragraph 3 of its order. Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority missed to record any finding in regard to the question No. 4 quoted above. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellate decision is vitiated. The questions urged by Sri Bisaria are required to be considered by the Appellate Authority itself.

7. Mr. Kauser. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. made no submission before us alleging personal mala fide against the respondent No. 3. Accordingly, we expunge the name of the respondent No. 3 in so far as his personal capacity is concerned.

8. In the result, this writ petition succeeds in part. The impugned appellate order, as contained in Annexure-XVI. is quashed and the appeal is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law.

9. Before parting, it is clarified that if the Government succeeds in effectively replying the questions urged on behalf of the petitioner, then in that event what orders are required to be passed by the Appellate Authority need not be stated by us.

10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we make no order as to cost.

11. The office is directed to handover a copy of this order within one week to Sri. P. K. Bisaria, for its intimation to and follow-up action bythe Appellate Authority.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Shamsher Singh vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Service Same Judge Binod Kumar Roy and;Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.

Service