Rajesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. And Another

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer after being selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 19.10.2000 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2007. [correct as per para 4] By an order dated 21.8.2012 petitioner was suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 for certain irregularities while he was posted as Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Muzaffar Nagar. A Charge sheet was issued on 12.03.2013 to the petitioner. Without intimating the date, time and place for holding inquiry and without holding any oral inquiry the inquiry report was submitted on 25.11.2013 and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit representation against the enquiry report within 15 days. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and denied the charges and refuted the finding of Inquiry Officer. 2 WRIA No. 13115 of 2025 Without considering the reply of the petitioner disciplinary authority awarded punishment vide order dated 12.5.2015 by which punishment of Censure and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed a claim petition no.1117/2015 (Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P.) before the learned State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow challenging the punishment order dated 12.5.2015. A written statement was filed by the State – respondent on 16.10.2015 and a rejoinder affidavit to the same was filed thereafter by the petitioner. The claim petition was finally decided in favour of the petitioner on 04.7.2023. The punishment order was quashed with a direction to the respondents to grant all consequential benefits. The opposite parties filed review petition no.55/2023 on 16.11.2023 praying for review of the order dated 04.7.2023 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. On the delay condonation application, notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed objections on 11.8.2024. Without condoning the delay in filing the review application, the Tribunal has allowed the review application and restored the claim petition to its original number. Certain submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the petitioner's case, however, having gone through the order impugned, we find that the Tribunal has noticed that there was a delay in filing the review application and the application for condonation of delay along with affidavit filed in support of it was filed. The contents of the affidavit have been noticed in para 1 of the order but thereafter no specific order has been passed condoning the delay and straightaway the learned Tribunal has considered the merits of the review application and has found error apparent on the face of record and has allowed the review application and the claim petition no.1117 of 2015 was restored to its original number and directed for hearing of the matter fixing a date. Having gone through the order impugned, we find that the Tribunal in para 3 has also noticed the objections filed to the review petition, application for condonation of delay and thereafter noticed from the record that there was an error of fact and law apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner had neither raised any plea with regard to violation of the rules 16 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 nor stated that U.P. Public Service Commission has not been consulted before passing an order of major 3 WRIA No. 13115 of 2025 penalty but such an argument having not been raised at all, has been considered and without giving opportunity to the State – respondents to rebut such contentions regarding non consideration of U.P. Public Services Commission, the judgment in the claim petition no.1117/15 has been delivered whereas the Public Services Commission was consulted and it had given its approval with regard to the proposed penalty as is evident from the letters filed with the Review Application. Moreover, the Tribunal has also noticed the argument raised by the State – respondents that in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad versus B. Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 and Chairman LIC of India & Others vs. A. Masilamani (Civil Appeal no.8263/2012), having set aside the order of punishment on technical ground of not following the principle of natural justice, no opportunity has been given to the respondents to initiate inquiry afresh from the stage it stood vitiated in the opinion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has only allowed the review petition and restored the claim petition to its original number. It has fixed the date for rehearing in the matter. On the whole the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper in the eyes of law. However, there may be an inadvertent error in not condoning the delay in filing the review petition. Only because there is an inadvertent error, more or less procedural error, an order which is otherwise just ordinarily ought not to be set aside. It will only revive an order in the claim petition no.1117/2015 which is apparently against the law settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar. We, therefore, we do not find any good ground to show interference as prayed for. Writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the claim petition which has stood revived in view of the order impugned should be decided as expeditiously as possible, by the Tribunal. November 12, 2025 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer after being selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 19.10.2000 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2007. [correct as per para 4] By an order dated 21.8.2012 petitioner was suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 for certain irregularities while he was posted as Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Muzaffar Nagar. A Charge sheet was issued on 12.03.2013 to the petitioner. Without intimating the date, time and place for holding inquiry and without holding any oral inquiry the inquiry report was submitted on 25.11.2013 and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit representation against the enquiry report within 15 days. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and denied the charges and refuted the finding of Inquiry Officer. 2 WRIA No. 13115 of 2025 Without considering the reply of the petitioner disciplinary authority awarded punishment vide order dated 12.5.2015 by which punishment of Censure and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed a claim petition no.1117/2015 (Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P.) before the learned State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow challenging the punishment order dated 12.5.2015. A written statement was filed by the State – respondent on 16.10.2015 and a rejoinder affidavit to the same was filed thereafter by the petitioner. The claim petition was finally decided in favour of the petitioner on 04.7.2023. The punishment order was quashed with a direction to the respondents to grant all consequential benefits. The opposite parties filed review petition no.55/2023 on 16.11.2023 praying for review of the order dated 04.7.2023 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. On the delay condonation application, notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed objections on 11.8.2024. Without condoning the delay in filing the review application, the Tribunal has allowed the review application and restored the claim petition to its original number. Certain submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the petitioner's case, however, having gone through the order impugned, we find that the Tribunal has noticed that there was a delay in filing the review application and the application for condonation of delay along with affidavit filed in support of it was filed. The contents of the affidavit have been noticed in para 1 of the order but thereafter no specific order has been passed condoning the delay and straightaway the learned Tribunal has considered the merits of the review application and has found error apparent on the face of record and has allowed the review application and the claim petition no.1117 of 2015 was restored to its original number and directed for hearing of the matter fixing a date. Having gone through the order impugned, we find that the Tribunal in para 3 has also noticed the objections filed to the review petition, application for condonation of delay and thereafter noticed from the record that there was an error of fact and law apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner had neither raised any plea with regard to violation of the rules 16 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 nor stated that U.P. Public Service Commission has not been consulted before passing an order of major 3 WRIA No. 13115 of 2025 penalty but such an argument having not been raised at all, has been considered and without giving opportunity to the State – respondents to rebut such contentions regarding non consideration of U.P. Public Services Commission, the judgment in the claim petition no.1117/15 has been delivered whereas the Public Services Commission was consulted and it had given its approval with regard to the proposed penalty as is evident from the letters filed with the Review Application. Moreover, the Tribunal has also noticed the argument raised by the State – respondents that in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad versus B. Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 and Chairman LIC of India & Others vs. A. Masilamani (Civil Appeal no.8263/2012), having set aside the order of punishment on technical ground of not following the principle of natural justice, no opportunity has been given to the respondents to initiate inquiry afresh from the stage it stood vitiated in the opinion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has only allowed the review petition and restored the claim petition to its original number. It has fixed the date for rehearing in the matter. On the whole the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper in the eyes of law. However, there may be an inadvertent error in not condoning the delay in filing the review petition. Only because there is an inadvertent error, more or less procedural error, an order which is otherwise just ordinarily ought not to be set aside. It will only revive an order in the claim petition no.1117/2015 which is apparently against the law settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar. We, therefore, we do not find any good ground to show interference as prayed for. Writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the claim petition which has stood revived in view of the order impugned should be decided as expeditiously as possible, by the Tribunal. November 12, 2025 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench