SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of an order dtd. 12/9/2022 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal [here-in-after referred to as 'the Tribunal'] whereby Claim Petition No. 642 of 2022 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. At this juncture itself, we may note that by filing Claim Petition No. 642 of 2022 before the Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the Order of Punishment dtd. 13/7/2021 whereby alongwith a censure entry, stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect was inflicted upon him.

(2.) Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-authorities. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate has been heard for U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission.

(3.) Primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner impeaching the order dtd. 12/9/2022 passed by the Tribunal, which is under challenge herein, is that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that during the course of disciplinary proceedings drawn against the petitioner which resulted in the punishment order dtd. 13/7/2021, the provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [here-in-after referred to as '1999 Rules'] were not followed inasmuch as before recording his disagreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority did not provide any opportunity of hearing or representing to the petitioner. His submission thus is that the course adopted by the State-authorities in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lav Nigam v. Chairman and MD, ITI Ltd. and another [2006 SCC (L&S) 1835].