SATYA PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five writ petitions challenge the decision of the State Government dated 3.8.1998 placing the petitioners in 'Amapya Pratibandhit Seva' in addition to posting them at 'Avkaryakari Sthan/Khand/Up-Khand' for 5 years and posting/transfer orders in pursuance of the aforesaid decision. The decision of the State Government is same in these five petitions though the posting orders are different. Same questions of law are being agitated, hence these writ petitions are consolidated. Satya Prakash Singh and another v. State of U. P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 25865/98, is the leading writ petition and for the sake of convenience reference to the facts and annexures are from this writ petition, FACTS

(2.) Sri Ram Dulare Singh Patel, resident of Daraganj, Allahabad, is a former State Minister of Uttar Pradesh and President of 'Sinchai Bandhu.' (friend of irrigation) Allahabad. He by his letter dated 30.1.1998 pointed out deficiency in the functioning of the tube-wells of Allahabad district and requested the Minister concerned to look into the matter. The State Government by letter dated 7.2.1998 requested the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department to conduct an inquiry through a Committee of two Superintending Engineers. The Chief Engineer by his letter dated 12.2.1998 constituted a Committee of Sri B. B. Mathur and Sri Madan Mohan. Superintending Engineers, (the Committee for short) and requested them to submit their report. The Committee requested the persons concerned to make the records available and made spot inspection in presence of the officers and the villagers. They submitted their report dated 7.4.1998. The State Government on the basis of the report took the impugned decision on 3-8.1998 and on the same day a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners asking them if they had anything to say against the same before any adverse/punitive decision is taken. Petitioners have submitted their reply. No decision has been taken so far, POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

(3.) We have heard the counsel for the parties. Following points arise for consideration : What, is the nature of the impugned order? is it punitive? Does it mean that petitioner will be given no work and have to sit idle? Or is it an order providing them with particular kind of work at a particular place? is it a suspension order? Has the State Government power to pass such an order? Is this order arbitrary or discriminatory? Was it necessary to afford on opportunity to the petitioners before passing the impugned order? Was reasonable opportunity given to the petitioners before order was issued? NATURE OF THE ORDER Its Meaning