State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Lko. and 2 Others v. Suresh Kumar Pal

Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11100 of 2024 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Lko. And 2 Others Respondent :- Suresh Kumar Pal Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶1Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the sole respondent by Sri Yogendra Singh, Advocate is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Manish Jauhari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-petitioners and Sri Yogendra Singh, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

¶3By means of this writ petition, the State-petitioner has come up against the judgment/order passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1512 of 2022 whereby the order of punishment inflicted upon the respondent i.e., stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been set aside with all consequential service benefits.

¶4Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was proceeded against with the issuance of a charge-sheet dated

09.02.2021 for a major penalty. Two charges were levelled against the respondent. The first charge levelled against the respondent was to the effect that on the date of allotment of a fair price shop through election when the local residents of the Gram Sabha were participating, the respondent being deputed to ensure the smooth proceedings was unable to manage and on eruption of a dispute amongst the residents, he left the spot without making any effort of dispersing the crowd, as such, an occurrence took place. Essentially, the charge is to the effect that if the respondent had persuaded the residents to go home by persuading them, no such occurrence of loss of life would have taken place.

¶5The second charge levelled against the respondent is for not informing the higher authorities as regards the emerging situation. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer in the present case does not find charge no.2 as having been proved. Therefore, the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is solely based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer relating to charge no.1 which according to the enquiry report is said to have been proved.

¶6On a close scrutiny of charge no.1, we find that the imputation levelled against the respondent was of running away from the spot and not persuading the residents to create any ruckus or violence. This charge levelled against the respondent is based on solitary documentary evidence of a letter of the District Magistrate dated 15.10.2020. The letter dated 15.10.2020 is also available on record and the same is extracted hereunder:- "्ቚेषक, जिलाधि कारी, बलिलया सेवा में, अपर मुख्य सधिव, नि युनि निवभाग, उ्ቈर ्ቚदेश शास , संख्याः 107 /आ०ले०जि०-उ०जि०वै० निद ांकः अक्टूबर 15, 2020 निवषय: ्ቇाम दु- पुर

,  पद बलिलया में हुई घट ा के सम्बन् में

रिरपोट-। महोदय, अवगत करा ा है निक ्ቇाम दु- पुर, था ा रेवती,  पद बलिलया में रिर सरकारी सस्ता ग्ቤा की दुका के य हेतु ्ቇामसमा की बैठक हेतु खण्ड निवकास अधि कारी बैरिरया ्ቛारा निद ांक 15.10.2020 की धितथिथ नि यत की गयी थी। उ बैठक में शाቌኌन्त एवं का ू व्यवस्था हेतु ्ቦी सुरेश कुमार पाल, उप जिलाधि कारी बैरिरया एवं ्ቦी न््ቖकेश िሺसह, ्ቌे्ቔ ाधि कारी बैरिरया, रेवती था े के 03 उप नि री्ቌक सनिहत आर्ቌीगण मौके पर उपቌኌस्थत थे। ्ቇामसभा की बैठक में ऐसा ्ቚतीत हो े पर निक अन्य ्ቇामसभा के लोग भी है, अधि कारिरयों ्ቛारा आ ार काड-या अन्य पहा प्ቔ हेतु अ ुरो निकया गया। इस बात को लेकर प्ቌों के मध्य निववाद की ቌኌस्थधित के कारण बैठक स्थनिगत कर े का नि ण-य लिलया गया एवं उप जिलाधि कारी एवं ्ቌे्ቔ ाधि कारी ्ቛारा सभी को अप े-अप े घर ा े का नि दOश निदया गया। इसी मध्य ीरेन््ቖ ्ቚताप िሺसह उ्ቛ-डब्लू िሺसह पु्ቔ निवरेन््ቖ ्ቚताप िሺसह तथा ्ቇाम ्ቚ ा के प्ቌ के गुटों में वाद-निववाद शुरू हो गया। वाद-निववाद के दौरा

ीरेन््ቖ ्ቚताप िሺसह उ्ቛ-डब्लू िሺसह ्ቛारा रिरवाल्वर/निपस्टल से य्ቚकाश पाल पु्ቔ गुमा ी पाल को गोली मार दी गयी, जिस पर मौके पर उपቌኌस्थत पुलिलस बल ्ቛारा कधितपय लोगों के साथ य्ቚकाश पाल को सामुदाधियक स्वास्थ्य केन््ቖ सो बरसा लेकर ाया गया, हाँ धिनिकत्सकों ्ቛारा उन्हें मृत घोनिषत निकया गया। ीरेन््ቖ ्ቚताप िሺसह उ्ቛ-डब्लू िሺसह व उसके साथ के अन्य लोग मौके से भाग गये। अधि कारिरयों एवं पुलिलस बल की उपቌኌस्थधित में अथिभयु शኚᮌ लेकर आये तथा घट ा कारिरत कर े के प्ቐात भाग गये तथा उ के निवरू्ቍ कोई काय-वाही हीं की गयी। उ घट ा में उपቌኌस्थत अधि कारिरयों्ቛ ारा भीड़ को पूण-रूप से हटाये ा े की काय-वाही ्ቚभावी रूप से निकये ा े की दशा में इस ्ቚकार की घट ा हीं घनिटत होती। इस काय-में ्ቚभावी रूप से काय-वाही हीं की गयी। न््ቖमा पाल पु्ቔ गुमा ी पाल की तहरीर के आ ार पर ीरेन््ቖ ्ቚताप िሺसह उ्ቛ-डब्लू िሺसह सनिहत 08 व्यनि यों के निवरु्ቍ ्ቚथम सू ा रिरपोट-द- कर टीम ब ाकर दनिबश व निगरफ्तारी की काय-वाही करायी ा रही है तथा शव को पोस्टमाट-म हेतु जिला धिनिकत्सालय, बलिलया भेा गया है। मौके पर शाቌኌन्त व्यवस्था की कोई समस्या हीं है। मौके पर पुलिलस बल तै ात है एवं जिलाधि कारी व पुलिलस अ ी्ቌक ्ቛारा संयु

रूप से ्ቝमण कर एवं उपቌኌस्थत रहकर शाቌኌन्त व्यवस्था सुनि धि्ቐत कराये ा े तथा अथिभयु ों की निगर्ቛ् तारी का ्ቚयास निकया ा रहा है। आख्या जिलाधि कारी महोदय की सहमधित से सादर अवलोक ाथ-व आवश्यक काय-वाही हेतु ्ቚेनिषत। भवदीय, (राम आसरे) अपर जिलाधि कारी (निव/रा) बलिलया"

¶7Having regard to the contents of the letter dated 15.10.2020 as extracted above, we fail to understand as to how the charge imputed against the respondent would have at all been levelled which clearly indicates the presence of the respondent throughout. The fact of running away is not at all reflected from the letter dated 15.10.2020 and there is equally no basis of the allegation that the respondent had failed to persuade the residents to return back home.

¶8The allegation against an officer that he ran away from the spot is altogether a different case as compared to his failure to persuade the mob to disperse. The letter dated 15.10.2020 nowhere suggests that the respondent had run away by disowning the administrative duty. The said letter rather ratifies the presence of the charged officer.

¶9The claim petition has also averred that the similarly situated persons who were present along with the respondent were inflicted a minor penalty of 'censure' and that being so, the respondent was subjected to a discriminatory treatment.

¶10All these aspects of the matter, on the basis of the pleadings set-out before the Tribunal were duly appreciated in the light of written statement filed by the State. The Tribunal having regard to the rival contentions and arguments putforth has clearly recorded a finding to the effect that the procedure prescribed for conducting the enquiry was not followed by fixing any date, time and place and no witness was examined for proving the documents placed reliance upon.

¶11Learned counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate as to how the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse. The discriminatory treatment which the respondent was met with has also not been explained convincingly in the writ petition.

¶12In these circumstances, the prayer for reopening the enquiry by the disciplinary authority, in our considered opinion, is a submission unworthy of being accepted to meet the ends of justice. This Court having regard to the exhaustive reasons recorded by the Tribunal is not convinced to take a different view, therefore, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13Thus, the writ petition being bereft of merit, is dismissed at the admission stage. . (Manish Kumar, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) Order Date :- 23.11.2024 akhilesh/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench