Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 41. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum.(Vide Raj Kishore Jha V. State of Bihar, SCC p. 527,para 19; Vishnu Dev Sharma V. State of U.P., Sail Vs. STO, State of Uttranchal V. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, U.P.SRTC V. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Ram Phal V. State of Haryana, Mohd Yusuf V. Faij Mohammad and State of H.P. V. Sada Ram." 13. In the case of State of U.P. and others (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the right and duty of the Disciplinary Authority, held as under :- "28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority /Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case, the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. 14. In view of above, so far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has not exercised its jurisdiction as an independent adjudicator and not considered the objections filed by the petitioner and also not discussed the evidence available on record except reproducing the observation made by the Enquiry Officer, mechanically, seems to be correct. The Disciplinary Authority should have passed a speaking and reasoned order after considering the evidence led by the parties. It was obligatory on the part of Disciplinary Authority to record finding with regard to petitioner's objection for non-supply of copy of preliminary enquiry report as well as in not permitting the petitioner to produce all seven witnesses as demanded during the course of enquiry.
1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.P. and others 421 15. The appellate authority has also not applied its mind with regard to aforesaid facts and circumstances while dismissing the appeal mechanically without recording the finding with regard to objection filed by the petitioner. On the sole ground, the writ petition deserves to be allowed leaving it open for the Disciplinary Authority to consider the same while passing a fresh order. 16. Supreme Court in a case reported in A.I.R. 1974 SC 1589, Krishna Chandra Tandon Vs The Union of India, held that preliminary enquiry report is material piece of of evidence, and its non supply should be violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 16-10-1992, 29-04-1993 and 13-03- 1994, as contained in Annexure Nos. 3,5 & 6 to the writ petition, with all consequential benefits with liberty to pass fresh order keeping in view the observations made in the body of the judgment. 18. Since, the petitioner has already retired from service, let Disciplinary Authority take a decision, in accordance to law, after taking into account the objection filed by the petitioner to the enquiry report as well as evidence led by the parties, expeditiously say preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No cost. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J. Criminal Misc. Case No.1003 of 2011 Kulwant Singh Versus State of U.P. and another ...Petitioner ...Opp.parties Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 319- summoning order-although Magistrate failed to record the reason of its satisfaction for summoning the applicant-bare perusal of statement of witness-summoning order-held-properso far direction of separate Trail not supported by any reasonable ground-to this extent-application partly allowed. Held: Para 14 and 16 In the present case the learned Magistrate has shown his satisfaction to summon the petitioner for trial on the basis of the statement of witnesses, being satisfied that the petitioner is liable to be tried. Though the learned Magistrate had to record his satisfaction in specific words as to what higher standard he has adopted to satisfy himself for summoning the petitioner, but he has failed to do so, however, keeping in view the statement of witnesses, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned for trial, therefore, I do not feel it appropriate to interfere in the order impugned only on the ground that the learned Magistrate has failed to disclose the material of his satisfaction for consideration of the application and for summoning the petitioner for trial. However, in light of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the case is not such a stage as it permits the separation of petitioner's trial from other co-accused, therefore, the direction of the learned
Page 1 and 2: 1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 3 and 4: 1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 5 and 6: 1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 23 and 24: 1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 29 and 30: 1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. S
Page 31 and 32: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 33 and 34: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 35 and 36: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 37: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 41 and 42: 1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 43 and 44: 1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 45 and 46: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 47 and 48: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 49 and 50: 1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P.
Page 51 and 52: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 53 and 54: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 55 and 56: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 57 and 58: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 59 and 60: 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissi
Page 61 and 62: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 63 and 64: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 65 and 66: 1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. St
Page 73 and 74: 1 All Dev Sharan Yadav V. State of
Page 75 and 76: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 77 and 78: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 79 and 80: 1 All Shiv Om and others V. Distric
Page 81 and 82: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 83 and 84: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 85 and 86: 1 All Nagina and others V. State of
Page 87 and 88: 1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 89 and 90:
1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 91 and 92:
1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 93 and 94:
1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
show all

Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?