VIRENDRA KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JALAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition having been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for hearing and is being decided finally.

(2.) Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The executive authorities are supposed to execute policies of Government employing Rule of Law as laid down by Legislature and interpreted by this court. The incidental work which is also of equal importance is that those responsible for such execution must perform their job diligently, devotedly, honestly with ultimate goal of best public interest. Those who lack, should be made to suffer consequences. The later part, i.e., the consequences, ordinarily comes as a result of disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with Rules laying down procedure consistent with Article 311 of the Constitution and on the broad principle of administrative law. The competent executive authorities are presumed to be well conversant with the procedure for disciplinary action etc. since it is a routine matter. The problem arises where the competent executive authority, in a most reckless and unmindful way though take disciplinary action, but, defying the procedure prescribed in law consistent with principle of natural justice, which, if comes before a Court of Law, normally fails to withstand judicial review for non-observance of principle of natural justice rendering disciplinary action a nullity. It detriments the public interest in various ways, like, if a person is dismissed or removed from service illegally, and, subsequently punishment order is set aside, it means that not only that person has not performed any job depriving his service to the common people but simultaneously public exchequer also suffers in terms of payment of arrears of salary etc. to such incumbent. Most of time the Courts have not put authorities to bear the brunt of such lapses, who have functioned with such blatant gross abuse of process by ignoring prescribed procedure in taking disciplinary action and have given only due relief to employee concerned but has ultimately fallen on the pocket of common man. The loss has been suffered by public at large at the end. Now the time has come to make them accountable. The brief facts leading to demonstrate and fortify above observations are as under.