State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh and anr.

State of U.P. and ors. vs Manoj Kumar Singh and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Feb 26, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/848101

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/848101
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Uma Nath Singh and; Devendra Kumar Arora, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 26, 2010
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of th...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of U.P. and ors.

Respondent

Manoj Kumar Singh and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: (State Bank of India and Ors. v. T.J. Paul

Excerpt

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....whereby the punishment has been quashed only on the ground that the punishment order did not refer to the relevant provisions where-under the inquiry was initiated and the punishment was passed. the tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that the appellate order was non-speaking and casual.5. we have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and we do not find any infirmity in the order. the tribunal after considering the materials on record found that the proceedings in question could have been initiated only under rule 7 of the u.p. government servant (discipline & appeal) rules, 1999, and punishment could have been passed under rule 10(2) thereof, but there is no reference to any such provision in the notice or punishment order. besides, the appellate order does not contain the reasons for rejection. in addition to that, a judgment of supreme court reported in 1999 scc 759 (state bank of india and ors. v. t.j. paul) has been cited in the impugned judgment to show that a delinquent employee cannot be visited with punishment for misconduct which is not provided/specified in the relevant rules.6. a delinquent employee, who files an appeal in expectation that injustice would be corrected by the higher authority, is entitled to know the reasons for rejection of his appeal so as to satisfy himself that the authority has applied his mind. thus, passing of a non-speaking and scanty order would not be justified. that apart, absence of reference to provisions where-under alone a departmental proceeding can be initiated against a public servant and he can be punished, would make such an order of punishment unsustainable in law. it may also amount to violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the public servant would be deprived of vital information about the provisions of law where-under he is being proceeded against in the departmental inquiry so that he could properly defend himself.7. in view of all the aforesaid, this writ.....

Full Judgment

1. This writ petition arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.08.2009 passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1496 of 1998.

2. Heard learned Counsel for State and perused the impugned judgment, pleadings and also the documents annexed with writ petition.

3. Respondent, for the first time, was posted as Sales Tax Officer on 16.04.1991. During the course of his service in 1998-99, he was posted on deputation with the Backward Class Welfare Department as an Officer at Jaunpur. On not being given complete charge, he got himself repatriated to his parent department. On inquiry, the Chief Development Officer, Jainpur could not find any irregularity against the petitioner. However, when the respondent was posted at Banda, he received a letter dated 03.02.2001 informing him that on account of certain irregularities a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him. Respondent submitted reply dated 31.08.2001 and was given personal hearing on 07.01.2002. To his utter dismay and surprise vide letter dated 07.07.2002, he was served with an order of punishment in the nature of censure and stoppage of one increment. His appeal filed to superior authority was rejected without passing a speaking order.

4. An argument has been made on behalf of the State that the Tribunal has committed illegality in passing the impugned order whereby the punishment has been quashed only on the ground that the punishment order did not refer to the relevant provisions where-under the inquiry was initiated and the punishment was passed. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that the appellate order was non-speaking and casual.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel and we do not find any infirmity in the order. The Tribunal after considering the materials on record found that the proceedings in question could have been initiated only under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, and punishment could have been passed under Rule 10(2) thereof, but there is no reference to any such provision in the notice or punishment order. Besides, the appellate order does not contain the reasons for rejection. In addition to that, a judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1999 SCC 759 (State Bank of India and Ors. v. T.J. Paul) has been cited in the impugned judgment to show that a delinquent employee cannot be visited with punishment for misconduct which is not provided/specified in the relevant Rules.

6. A delinquent employee, who files an appeal in expectation that injustice would be corrected by the higher authority, is entitled to know the reasons for rejection of his appeal so as to satisfy himself that the authority has applied his mind. Thus, passing of a non-speaking and scanty order would not be justified. That apart, absence of reference to provisions where-under alone a departmental proceeding can be initiated against a public servant and he can be punished, would make such an order of punishment unsustainable in law. It may also amount to violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the public servant would be deprived of vital information about the provisions of law where-under he is being proceeded against in the departmental inquiry so that he could properly defend himself.

7. In view of all the aforesaid, this writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties State of U.P. and ors. vs Manoj Kumar Singh and anr. Same Subject Service Same Judge Uma Nath Singh and; Devendra Kumar Arora, JJ.

Service