Subedar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise 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. - 8. for the reasons aforesaid i am or the considered opinion that no misconduct has been committed by the petitioner by merely showing his intent to commit suicide by giving notice of 'atmdah'.he cannot be removed from service by the respondents also for the reason that not only the impugned order is without any application of mind but also because his dismissal appears to be against all canons of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any copy of the enquiry report for effectively challenging it in appeal which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing before awarding punishment.orderrakesh tiwari, j.1. heard counsel for the parties.2. the petitioner had given a notice dated 10.8.2005 for 'atmdah' for not considering his grievances which have not been considered by the officials which he had communicated to the officials, including some personal grievances also. he thereafter, withdrew his aforesaid notice of 'atmdah' within a week vide letter dated 18.8.2005.3. pursuant to the notice of 'atmdah' dated 10.8.2005 an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was given to him under covering letter dated 21.9.2005. subsequently, enquiry report was also submitted by the enquiry officer. on the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, a show cause dated 18.2.2006 was served on the petitioner without appending therewith copy of the enquiry report.4. the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause dated 18.2.2006, however by an order dated 28.4.2006 he was dismissed from service by the service manager regional workshop, u.p.s.r.t.c., allahabad.the petitioner preferred an appeal before the regional manager, respondent no. 2 which was rejected vide order dated 18.5.2006. aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent no. 2 affirming the dismissal order of the petitioner by his order dated 28th october, 2006.5. the petitioner has been dismissed from service only on the ground that he had given a notice of 'atmdah' to draw the attention of the authorities towards certain problems he was facing in life and for mitigation of their grievances by the authorities as a friend philosopher and guide being on a higher post and status than the petitioner.6. it is not in dispute that the petitioner never acted upon the notice of 'atmdah' and had in fact withdrawn the said notice within a week of its serving on the authority, hence it cannot be said that any misconduct or any criminal offence was committed by the petitioner.7. since no misconduct was committed by the petitioner, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner for any misconduct which was not committed is not only highly disproportionate to the charge but also shocks the conscience of the court.8. for the reasons aforesaid i am or the considered opinion that no misconduct has been committed by the petitioner by merely showing his intent to commit suicide by giving notice of 'atmdah'. he cannot be removed from service by the respondents also for the reason that not only the impugned order is without any application of mind but also because his dismissal appears to be against all canons of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any copy of the enquiry report for effectively challenging it in appeal which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing before awarding punishment. an intention to commit suicide 'by 'atmdah' is not an offence unless it is put to an action. if put to action and had the petitioner succeeded in his intention, he would have been beyond reprieve or any punishment in the world. had he not only than he even liable to punishment in this mortal world.9. for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service with continuity of service within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order and pay his all legal dues and benefits, which the petitioner would have been entitled to had his services not been illegally terminated by the respondents.

Judgment:
ORDER

Rakesh Tiwari, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner had given a notice dated 10.8.2005 for 'atmdah' for not considering his grievances which have not been considered by the officials which he had communicated to the officials, including some personal grievances also. He thereafter, withdrew his aforesaid notice of 'atmdah' within a week vide letter dated 18.8.2005.

3. Pursuant to the notice of 'atmdah' dated 10.8.2005 an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was given to him under covering letter dated 21.9.2005. Subsequently, enquiry report was also submitted by the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, a show cause dated 18.2.2006 was served on the petitioner without appending therewith copy of the enquiry report.

4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause dated 18.2.2006, however by an order dated 28.4.2006 he was dismissed from service by the Service Manager Regional Workshop, U.P.S.R.T.C., Allahabad.

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Regional Manager, respondent No. 2 which was rejected vide order dated 18.5.2006. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No. 2 affirming the dismissal order of the petitioner by his order dated 28th October, 2006.

5. The petitioner has been dismissed from service only on the ground that he had given a notice of 'atmdah' to draw the attention of the authorities towards certain problems he was facing in life and for mitigation of their grievances by the authorities as a friend philosopher and guide being on a higher post and status than the petitioner.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner never acted upon the notice of 'atmdah' and had in fact withdrawn the said notice within a week of its serving on the authority, hence it cannot be said that any misconduct or any criminal offence was committed by the petitioner.

7. Since no misconduct was committed by the petitioner, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner for any misconduct which was not committed is not only highly disproportionate to the charge but also shocks the conscience of the Court.

8. For the reasons aforesaid I am or the considered opinion that no misconduct has been committed by the petitioner by merely showing his intent to commit suicide by giving notice of 'atmdah'. He cannot be removed from service by the respondents also for the reason that not only the impugned order is without any application of mind but also because his dismissal appears to be against all canons of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any copy of the enquiry report for effectively challenging it in appeal which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing before awarding punishment. An intention to commit suicide 'by 'atmdah' is not an offence unless it is put to an action. If put to action and had the petitioner succeeded in his intention, he would have been beyond reprieve or any punishment in the World. Had he not only than he even liable to punishment in this mortal world.

9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service with continuity of service within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order and pay his all legal dues and benefits, which the petitioner would have been entitled to had his services not been illegally terminated by the respondents.