Aligarh Development Authority and ors. Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and ors.

Aligarh Development Authority and ors. vs State Public Services Tribunal and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Jan 16, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/493348

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/493348
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Yatindra Singh and; Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 16, 2008
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition allowed

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
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aligarh Development Authority and ors.

Respondent

State Public Services Tribunal and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: [2008(117)FLR271]

Excerpt

.....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. - 6. the tribunal on the basis of aforesaid findings allowed the application of the contesting respondent and quashed the order dated 15.4.1989 as well the order dated 5.3.1990 and ordered that the contesting respondent would be giver......respondent, passed fresh order on 17th may, 1990 by denying him salary, during period of the-suspension.5. the contesting respondent filed original application no. 251 (11)/1990 before the u.p. public services tribunal (tribunal) lucknow which was allowed on 12.9.1997. the tribunal held that the contesting respondent was given lull opportunity to examine the documents, however, he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness and as such the order is vitiated on this account.6. the tribunal on the basis of aforesaid findings allowed the application of the contesting respondent and quashed the order dated 15.4.1989 as well the order dated 5.3.1990 and ordered that the contesting respondent would be giver. his salary for the period of suspension. hence, the present writ petition by the authority.7. this is the case where no witnesses were examined on behalf of the authority. the petitioners in paragraph 13 of the writ petition have alleged that enquiry report was based on the documentary evidence and no oral evidence was produced/there is no specific denial of the same. in case no oral evidence was recorded then there was no question of giving opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. in case the contesting respondent wanted to produce oral evidence then it was open to him to do so. he instead of producing evidence has requested that the lenient view be taken.8. in view of above the order of the tribunal is illegal and it is quashed. the orders dated 15th april, 1989, 5th march, 1990 and 17th may, 1990 are upheld. the writ petition is allowed.

Full Judgment

Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.

1. Sri Bal Kishan Garg was a Junior Engineer (Technical) in the Alignrh Development Authority, tie was given a charge-sheet on 18th October, 1988 levelling three charges against the contesting respondent. He filed his reply on 20th December, 1988. The Enquiry Officer found that charge Nos. 1 and 3 to be proved and 2 to be partly proved. The enquiry report was submitted on 20th February, 1989.

2. The contesting respondent sent a letter dated 7th April, 1989 to the Vice-Chairman, Aligarh Development Authority admitting his guilt and requesting that sympathetic view be taken. The vice-Chairman passed an order on 15th April, 1989 accepting the enquiry report but considering the letter given by the contesting respondent passed the following order:

(a) Three annual increments be stopped.

(b) Censure entry be made in his character roll.

3. The contesting respondent filed an appeal. It was decided on 5th March, 1990. The appellate authority confirmed the punishment order but so far as nonpayment of salary for the suspension period was concerned the Vice Chairman was asked to pass fresh order after opportunity to the contesting respondent.

4. The -Vice Chairman asked notice to the contesting respondent, passed fresh order on 17th May, 1990 by denying him salary, during period of the-suspension.

5. The contesting respondent filed original application No. 251 (11)/1990 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (Tribunal) Lucknow which was allowed on 12.9.1997. The Tribunal held that the contesting respondent was given lull opportunity to examine the documents, however, he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness and as such the order is vitiated on this account.

6. The Tribunal on the basis of aforesaid findings allowed the application of the contesting respondent and quashed the order dated 15.4.1989 as well the order dated 5.3.1990 and ordered that the contesting respondent would be giver. his salary for the period of suspension. Hence, the present writ petition by the Authority.

7. This is the case where no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Authority. The petitioners in paragraph 13 of the writ petition have alleged that enquiry report was based on the documentary evidence and no oral evidence was produced/There is no specific denial of the same. In case no oral evidence was recorded then there was no question of giving opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In case the contesting respondent wanted to produce oral evidence then it was open to him to do so. He instead of producing evidence has requested that the lenient view be taken.

8. In view of above the order of the Tribunal is illegal and it is quashed. The orders dated 15th April, 1989, 5th March, 1990 and 17th May, 1990 are upheld. The writ petition is allowed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2008 Same Parties Aligarh Development Authority and ors. vs State Public Servic... Same Subject Service Same Judge Yatindra Singh and; Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.

Service