Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 496 of 2000 Petitioner :- State Of U.P.& Others Respondent :- Om Prakash Singh Petitioner Counsel :- S.C. Respondent Counsel :- A.N.Rai Hon'ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello,Chief Justice Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
State is in appeal against the order dated 8.2.2000 whereby the petition
filed by the petitioner was allowed. The only ground on the which the
learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition was that no
copy of inquiry report was submitted to the petitioner. The learned
Single Judge placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Union of
India and Others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan and others, reported in 1991
(9) LCD 241 as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad and others Vs. K. Karunakar, and
others, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727.
We have perused the pleadings of the writ petition and we do not find
any averment to the effect that the copy of inquiry report was not
supplied to the respondent petitioner. On the contrary the order of
punishment itself notes that the findings of the inquiry report along with
a show cause notice was duly served on the respondent petitioner and
in paragraph-5 of the affidavit in support of the stay application in this
appeal it has been categorically stated that the service was made on the
wife of the respondent petitioner. Not only this the respondent petitioner
has taken exception to the findings of the inquiry report in the writ
petition which establishes that he had knowledge of the inquiry report.
For the aforesaid reasons the findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge is contrary to the record.
In the normal course if there was any such deficiency or violation of
principles of natural justice the order impugned could have been set
aside and the matter relegated back to the disciplinary authority to
proceed from the stage the discrepancy had occurred in view of the ratio
of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Karunakar
(supra). On a perusal of the petition and the record we find that the
petitioner had taken other points as well to challenge the impugned
order which have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. It is
stated at the bar that after the judgment of the learned Single Judge the
respondent petitioner has been reinstated in service and is working.
We accordingly set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and
remit the matter back for reconsideration of the points raised by the
respondent petitioner in accordance with law. It is also stated that a
review petition had been filed by the appellant State before the learned
Single Judge. The said review petition is rendered infructuous in view of
the decision pronounced by us today. In the mean time the services of
the petitioner shall not be disturbed till the final disposal of the writ
petition and he shall be allowed to continue in service.
Appeal is allowed subject to the observations made herein above. No
order as to costs.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010
Sahu