Balveer Singh v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6074 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner :- Balveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Kumar Shrivastava,Kishan Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Heard Sri Kishan Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as an Assistant Consolidation Officer in the Consolidation Department at District Hathras on 6.9.1985 and superannuated on 31.7.2022. A charge sheet was issued to the writ petitioner dated 13.4.2022 containing as many as five charges. Thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed who tendered his inquiry report.
Decision
Challenging the inquiry report, the writ petition preferred Writ-A No.20133 of 2022, Balveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 others in which the following the order was passed:- "Instructions filed today in Court are taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Present petition has been filed challenging the inquiry proceedings which led to passing of the report dated 8.7.2022 against the petitioner as well as the charge sheet dated 13.4.2022. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 13.4.2022 wherein as many as 5 charges were levelled against the petitioner and in support of the said charges, the evidence in the form of reports were proposed to be relied upon. The petitioner denied the said charges and thereafter in terms of Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the inquiry was to proceed. It is stated that the inquiry was got concluded against the petitioner without informing any date and time and without associating the petitioner with the inquiry. The inquiry report is on record as Annexure - 2. A perusal of the inquiry report does not reveal that the petitioner was associated with the inquiry at any point of time. This Court on the basis of the said averments had called for instructions from the respondents as to whether the petitioner was associated with the inquiry or not which is the mandate of Rule 7, learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions to the effect that the petitioner was not associated at the time of the inquiry. The said action of the respondents is clearly contrary to the mandate of Rule 7 as well as the Government Order dated 19.7.2022, specifically Instruction No.11 issued in the Government Order dated 19.7.2022. Considering the fact that the petitioner was not associated with the inquiry at any stage, the inquiry report is clearly unsustainable being contrary to the mandate of Rule 7 read with Instruction No.11 of the Government Order dated 19.7.2022, as such, the inquiry report dated 8.7.2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer shall proceed with the inquiry de novo after associating the petitioner with the inquiry strictly in accordance with Rule 7 read with direction given in the Government Order dated 19.7.2022. As regards the claim of the petitioner for retiral dues, learned Standing Counsel informs that the case of the petitioner for payment of interim pension has already been forwarded to the State Government, however, no decision has been taken thereupon. Considering the submission of learned Standing Counsel, respondents are directed to ensure the payment of interim pension to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed off in above terms." It is further the submission of the writ petitioner on the strength of the documents at page 49 of the paper book that the writ petitioner has been paid provisional pension, however, so far as the payment of G.P.F., Leave Encashment and Group Insurance is concerned, the respondents themselves have recommended the case of the writ petition on 25.2.2023, 3.3.2023 and 13.3.2023 which is at page 19, 22 and 24 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submits that even post passing of the order in the writ proceedings the writ petitioner is participating in the Inquiry proceedings however once the respondents themselves have recommended the case of the writ petitioner for payment of G.P.F., Leave Encashment and Group Insurance then withholding of the same is not justified. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to pay G.P.F., Leave Encashment and the amount relatable to Group Insurance. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that in terms of the order of the writ court the writ petitioner is being paid provisional pension and the Inquiry proceedings are underway and thus the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of letters as referred to above recommending the case of the writ petitioner for payment of G.P.F., Leave Encashment and Group Insurance cannot be acceded to particularly when the payment of the same will be dependent upon the final outcome of the inquiry. Additionally, it has been submitted submitted that since the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the said dues as claimed by him is to be given a conscious decision by the competent authority thus the writ petitioner may represent his case before the fourth respondent-Chakbandi Ayukt, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh, who shall accord consideration to the same. It has been further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that they do not propose to file any affidavit. Considering the submission of rival parties and stand taken by them, the writ petition is disposed off without seeking any response from the respondents while granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the fourth respondent who shall accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner for payment of G.P.F., Leave Encashment and Group Insurance strictly in accordance with law in light of the rules and the government orders governing the field within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed off. Since the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response, thus any of the observations made herein may not be construed to be an observation on merits as the fourth respondent is to accord consideration strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observation herein above. Order Date :- 7.4.2023 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad