Ganga Ram vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Its

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents, that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing of an appeal and consequently the Court may not entertain the writ petition.

3. The said argument is rejected outrightly, inasmuch as the petition has been pending before this Court since the year 2022 and a period of almost three years have lapsed and the fact that the pleadings are also complete. Consequently, this Court does not find any necessity of relegating the petitioner at this stage to the alternative remedy of appeal.

4. Under challenge is the order dated 28.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

5. Further prayer is for mandamus commanding the respondents to grant all consequential service benefits including post retiral dues to the petitioner.

6. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as Incharge, Estate Management, he 2 WRIA No. 5581 of 2022 was issued a charge sheet dated 08.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure-6 to the petition.

7. The petitioner demanded certain documents vide his letters dated

25.04.2022, 24.06.2022 and 08.07.2022, copies of which are annexures-7, 8, and 10 to the petition, respectively. The respondents vide letter dated 11.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-13 to the petition, informed the petitioner that the documents as available are being given to him and he was required to submit his reply within three days.

8. Immediately responding, the petitioner vide his letter dated

11.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-12 to the petition, pointed out that the documents supplied to him vide letter dated 11.07.2022 by the respondents were incomplete, inasmuch as there is no specific date as to when the concerned clerk received the letter which has been supplied to the petitioner and the copy of the dispatch register, which has been given to the petitioner, is also not certified and also does not bear any date on which it has been received and thus prayed that the documents as have been asked for by him be supplied.

9. Admittedly, the respondents did not rebut the said letter dated 11.07.2022 as indicated above and neither supplied the documents as were indicated by the petitioner in the said letter. They issued a show cause notice dated 14.07.2022 along with the inquiry report of the said date, requiring the petitioner to show cause against the charges as found proved against him in the inquiry report. A copy of the show cause notice is annexure-15 to the petition. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-16 to the petition, again reiterating that the inquiry has been held without supplying the documents as were required by him for the submission of his defence.

10. The said reply did not find favour with the disciplinary authority, who, vide the order impugned dated 28.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, dismissed the petitioner from service.

11. Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed. 3 WRIA No. 5581 of 2022

12. Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents has argued on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit that whatever documents were in fact available with the respondents were supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was only prolonging the matter so that he could retire and no order could be passed in the proceedings that were initiated against him, he having retired on 31.07.2022.

13. However, Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents fairly states that subsequent to the petitioner having indicated that the documents supplied by the respondents vide letter dated 11.07.2022 were not provided to the petitioner, the same were again demanded as indicated by the petitioner vide letter dated 11.07.2022.

14. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that despite the petitioner having repeatedly asked for certain documents and a few of the documents, in order to enable him to submit his reply, having been submitted to the petitioner vide letter dated 11.07.2022, yet upon the petitioner having pointed out the shortcomings in the said documents / the documents not being complete / the documents not having the receiving etc. of the concerned clerk, the respondents have failed to respond to the said letter and did not even care to indicate that the documents as supplied to the petitioner were complete in all respects. Rather, the respondents have proceeded with the inquiry and have thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 14.07.2022 along with the inquiry report of even date, i.e., immediately three days after issuance of letter dated 11.07.2022 and the petitioner had been required to submit his reply.

15. Three days, if at all the petitioner could have submitted his reply in pursuance of the letter dated 11.07.2022, would have lapsed on

14.07.2022 and thus it is not understood as to how on 14.07.2022 itself, the show cause notice along with the inquiry report was drawn up.

16. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the documents which were asked for by the petitioner were never 4 WRIA No. 5581 of 2022 supplied and the respondents drew up the inquiry report dated

14.07.2022 and without appreciating the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 25.07.2022 indicating non-supply of the documents, the dismissal order dated 28.07.2022 has been passed.

17. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it is thus apparent that the respondents have proceeded with the inquiry without even supplying the documents or without even adverting to the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 11.07.2022, indicating that the documents supplied were not complete in all respects.

18. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 28.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside.

19. The matter is remitted to the respondents to consider the letter of the petitioner dated 11.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-12 to the petition, pertaining to the documents. The respondents shall respond to the said letter dated 11.07.2022, as submitted by the petitioner, and supply the documents that are available to them and also indicate if the said documents are not available with them. Thereafter, the petitioner shall submit his reply within the next two weeks, which shall be considered by the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents shall proceed with the inquiry and a final order shall be passed within six weeks thereafter.

20. Needless to mention, the petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings. In case of non-cooperation, the competent authority shall issue a letter indicating the non-cooperation of the petitioner and the aforesaid period during which the petitioner does not cooperate shall be excluded from the time frame as fixed above.

21. The consequences of an order being passed in pursuance to this order in the enquiry would follow. September 24, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents, that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing of an appeal and consequently the Court may not entertain the writ petition.

3. The said argument is rejected outrightly, inasmuch as the petition has been pending before this Court since the year 2022 and a period of almost three years have lapsed and the fact that the pleadings are also complete. Consequently, this Court does not find any necessity of relegating the petitioner at this stage to the alternative remedy of appeal.

4. Under challenge is the order dated 28.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

5. Further prayer is for mandamus commanding the respondents to grant all consequential service benefits including post retiral dues to the petitioner.

6. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as Incharge, Estate Management, he 2 WRIA No. 5581 of 2022 was issued a charge sheet dated 08.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure-6 to the petition.

7. The petitioner demanded certain documents vide his letters dated

25.04.2022, 24.06.2022 and 08.07.2022, copies of which are annexures-7, 8, and 10 to the petition, respectively. The respondents vide letter dated 11.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-13 to the petition, informed the petitioner that the documents as available are being given to him and he was required to submit his reply within three days.

8. Immediately responding, the petitioner vide his letter dated

11.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-12 to the petition, pointed out that the documents supplied to him vide letter dated 11.07.2022 by the respondents were incomplete, inasmuch as there is no specific date as to when the concerned clerk received the letter which has been supplied to the petitioner and the copy of the dispatch register, which has been given to the petitioner, is also not certified and also does not bear any date on which it has been received and thus prayed that the documents as have been asked for by him be supplied.

9. Admittedly, the respondents did not rebut the said letter dated 11.07.2022 as indicated above and neither supplied the documents as were indicated by the petitioner in the said letter. They issued a show cause notice dated 14.07.2022 along with the inquiry report of the said date, requiring the petitioner to show cause against the charges as found proved against him in the inquiry report. A copy of the show cause notice is annexure-15 to the petition. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-16 to the petition, again reiterating that the inquiry has been held without supplying the documents as were required by him for the submission of his defence.

10. The said reply did not find favour with the disciplinary authority, who, vide the order impugned dated 28.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, dismissed the petitioner from service.

11. Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed. 3 WRIA No. 5581 of 2022

12. Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents has argued on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit that whatever documents were in fact available with the respondents were supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was only prolonging the matter so that he could retire and no order could be passed in the proceedings that were initiated against him, he having retired on 31.07.2022.

13. However, Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents fairly states that subsequent to the petitioner having indicated that the documents supplied by the respondents vide letter dated 11.07.2022 were not provided to the petitioner, the same were again demanded as indicated by the petitioner vide letter dated 11.07.2022.

14. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that despite the petitioner having repeatedly asked for certain documents and a few of the documents, in order to enable him to submit his reply, having been submitted to the petitioner vide letter dated 11.07.2022, yet upon the petitioner having pointed out the shortcomings in the said documents / the documents not being complete / the documents not having the receiving etc. of the concerned clerk, the respondents have failed to respond to the said letter and did not even care to indicate that the documents as supplied to the petitioner were complete in all respects. Rather, the respondents have proceeded with the inquiry and have thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 14.07.2022 along with the inquiry report of even date, i.e., immediately three days after issuance of letter dated 11.07.2022 and the petitioner had been required to submit his reply.

15. Three days, if at all the petitioner could have submitted his reply in pursuance of the letter dated 11.07.2022, would have lapsed on

14.07.2022 and thus it is not understood as to how on 14.07.2022 itself, the show cause notice along with the inquiry report was drawn up.

16. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the documents which were asked for by the petitioner were never 4 WRIA No. 5581 of 2022 supplied and the respondents drew up the inquiry report dated

14.07.2022 and without appreciating the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 25.07.2022 indicating non-supply of the documents, the dismissal order dated 28.07.2022 has been passed.

17. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it is thus apparent that the respondents have proceeded with the inquiry without even supplying the documents or without even adverting to the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 11.07.2022, indicating that the documents supplied were not complete in all respects.

18. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 28.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside.

19. The matter is remitted to the respondents to consider the letter of the petitioner dated 11.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure-12 to the petition, pertaining to the documents. The respondents shall respond to the said letter dated 11.07.2022, as submitted by the petitioner, and supply the documents that are available to them and also indicate if the said documents are not available with them. Thereafter, the petitioner shall submit his reply within the next two weeks, which shall be considered by the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents shall proceed with the inquiry and a final order shall be passed within six weeks thereafter.

20. Needless to mention, the petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings. In case of non-cooperation, the competent authority shall issue a letter indicating the non-cooperation of the petitioner and the aforesaid period during which the petitioner does not cooperate shall be excluded from the time frame as fixed above.

21. The consequences of an order being passed in pursuance to this order in the enquiry would follow. September 24, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench