Ram Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. Pollution Control Board and ors.

Ram Kumar Singh vs U.P. Pollution Control Board and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 20, 2008

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/493104

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/493104
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: U.K. Dhaon and ;V.D. Chaturvedi, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 20, 2008
Subject: Service

Case Summary

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

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Kumar Singh

Advocate Sri. Salil Kumar Srivastava

Respondent

U.P. Pollution Control Board and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress.
Reported In: 2009(2)AWC1439

Excerpt

.....of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - in the sphere of public employment, it is well-settled that any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just and reasonable which are the components of fair treatment......for the petitioner and sri sudhir pande, learned counsel for the opposite parties.2. the petitioner being aggrieved by the punishment order dated 9.2.2007 and the enquiry report dated 15.1.2007 has filed the instant writ petition.3. the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while posted at n.o.i.d.a. as regional officer/environmental engineer was placed under suspension by the order dated 17.2.2006. the additional director, central pollution control board was appointed as the enquiry officer by the order dated 22.3.2006. a charge-sheet dated 9.6.2006 containing 12 charges was served upon the petitioner. the petitioner, thereafter submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 27.6.2006. the petitioner was required to appear before the enquiry officer on 20.11.2006 at central pollution control board, delhi.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no effort was made by the department to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner by leading any evidence and on the basis of the high power committee recommendation an enquiry report dated 15.1.2007 was submitted by the enquiry officer on the basis of which the impugned punishment order dated 9.2.2007 was passed, which is legally not sustainable. he further submits that the impugned punishment order is in violation of the principles natural justice. he has relied upon a decision of hon'ble supreme court in the case of vice-chancellor, banaras hindu university and ors. v. shrikant : air 2006 sc2304 .5. the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned punishment order.6. we have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.7. it is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner while posted at n.o.i.d.a. as regional officer/environmental engineer was placed under suspension by the order dated 17.2.2006. the additional director, central pollution control board was appointed as the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

U.K. Dhaon and V.D. Chaturvedi, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Pande, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the punishment order dated 9.2.2007 and the enquiry report dated 15.1.2007 has filed the instant writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while posted at N.O.I.D.A. as Regional Officer/Environmental Engineer was placed under suspension by the order dated 17.2.2006. The Additional Director, Central Pollution Control Board was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the order dated 22.3.2006. A charge-sheet dated 9.6.2006 containing 12 charges was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 27.6.2006. The petitioner was required to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 20.11.2006 at Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no effort was made by the Department to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner by leading any evidence and on the basis of the High Power Committee recommendation an enquiry report dated 15.1.2007 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the impugned punishment order dated 9.2.2007 was passed, which is legally not sustainable. He further submits that the impugned punishment order is in violation of the principles natural justice. He has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vice-chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and Ors. v. Shrikant : AIR 2006 SC2304 .

5. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned punishment order.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner while posted at N.O.I.D.A. as Regional Officer/Environmental Engineer was placed under suspension by the order dated 17.2.2006. The Additional Director, Central Pollution Control Board was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the order dated 22.3.2006. A charge-sheet dated 9.6.2006 containing 12 charges was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 27.6.2006. Admittedly, no effort was made by the Department to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner by leading any evidence and on the basis of the High Power Committee recommendation, an enquiry report dated 15.1.2007 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the impugned punishment order dated 9.2.2007 was passed. It is settled law of this Court that after submission of the reply by the delinquent officer to the charge-sheet an oral enquiry is a must. The impugned punishment order is in violation of the principles of natural Justice.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University (1998) 8 SCC 194, has held as under:

The law is settled that non-arbitrariness is an essential facet of Article 14 pervading the entire realm of State action governed by Article 14. It has come to be established, as a further corollary, that the audi alteram partem facet of natural justice is also a requirement of Article 14, for natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of public employment, it is well-settled that any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just and reasonable which are the components of fair treatment. The conferment of absolute power to terminate the services of an employee is an antithesis to fair, just and reasonable treatment. This aspect was exhaustively considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress.

9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned punishment order dated 9.2.2007 and the enquiry report dated 15.1.2007, the copies of which has been annexed as Annexures-1 and 8A to the writ petition are hereby quashed. However, it will be open for the opposite parties to hold a fresh enquiry, in accordance with law, from the stage reply to the charge-sheet was submitted.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2008 Same Parties Ram Kumar Singh vs U.P. Pollution Control Board and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge U.K. Dhaon and ;V.D. Chaturvedi, JJ.

Service