STATE OF U. P. Vs. SUNNY YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dtd. 22/3/2023 as corrected on 11/4/2023, whereby the punishment order dtd. 13/7/2020 against the petitioner has been set aside. Learned Single Judge has returned a finding that the procedure required to be followed for conduct of departmental enquiry i.e. U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been adhered to. The enquiry report has been perused by learned Single Judge and it is recorded that after considering petitioner's reply no oral or documentary evidence has been produced or taken note of, nor any such evidence has been proved. Learned Single Judge therefore has arrived at the conclusion that order of dismissal based upon such defective enquiry held in violation of the Rules of 1999 cannot be sustained. An opportunity has been given to the appellants to proceed against the petitioner, by holding a fresh enquiry, in accordance with applicable Rules. A further direction has been issued to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The judgment has been corrected later and the petitioner has been held entitled to arrears of salary also in addition to the subsistence amount.

(3.) Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State contends that the finding of the Writ Court with regard to non adherence to the procedure stipulated in Rule 7 of 1999 Rules is unsustainable inasmuch as enquiry has been conducted strictly as per law. It is also argued that since the Writ Court has granted liberty to the employer to hold a fresh enquiry. Therefore, the direction to release arrears of salary is impermissble.