State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1442 of 2005
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1505 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1505 of 1996)
Petitioner: State of U.P. and Ors.
Respondent: Raj Kishore Yadav and Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1442 of 2005
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1505 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1505 of 1996)
Judges: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 20, 2006
Appearances:
Mr. Pramod Swarup, Mr. B.N. Jha, Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 226 – Service matter – Dismissal based on order by disciplinary authority – Whether High Court has scope of interference and if so, to what extent in the administrative action of State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 – Disciplinary Authority passing order of dismissal against respondent on various serious charges proved beyond any doubt – Respondent filing a writ petition in Allahabad High Court against the said order of dismissal – High Court quashing the dismissal order and granting continuity of service with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits on grounds that the acts were merely sheer mistakes or errors on the part of ~4~ Appellant challenging High Court Order in Supreme Court. Allowing appeal, held, High Court has made an error of judgment as High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed.
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 226 – Service matter – Dismissal based on order by disciplinary authority – Whether High Court has scope of interference and if so, to what extent in the administrative action of State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 – Disciplinary Authority passing order of dismissal against respondent on various serious charges proved beyond any doubt – Respondent filing a writ petition in Allahabad High Court against the said order of dismissal – High Court quashing the dismissal order and granting continuity of service with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits on grounds that the acts were merely sheer mistakes or errors on the part of ~4~ Appellant challenging High Court Order in Supreme Court. Allowing appeal, held, High Court has made an error of judgment as High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed.
Held:
In our opinion, the order passed by the High Court quashing the order of dismissal is nothing but the error of judgment. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of dismissal and granting continuity of service with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. As already noticed, the charges are very serious in nature and the same have been proved beyond any doubt. We have also carefully gone through the Enquiry Report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and of the Tribunal and we are unable to agree with the reasons given by the High Court in modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In short, the judgment of the High Court is nothing but perverse. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering dismissal of the respondent herein from service. It is ordered accordingly. The civil appeal stands allowed. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1505/1996 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein. The High Court by the impugned order modified the punishment by way of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and quashed the order of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent herein. The High Court also ordered reinstatement with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits.
3. We have been taken through the charges framed against the respondent herein and also the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the order passed in the claim petition. Five charges were framed against the respondent herein. The charges are very serious in nature. The charges No.1,2,3 and 5 have been proved beyond any doubt. Charge No.4 has not been proved.
4. On a consideration of the entire materials placed before the authorities, they came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal would meet the ends of justice. When a writ petition was filed challenging the correctness of the order of dismissal, the High Court interfered with the order of dismissal on the ground that the acts complained of were sheer mistakes or errors on the part of the respondent herein and for that no punishment could be attributed to the respondent. In our opinion, the order passed by the High Court quashing the order of dismissal is nothing but the error of judgment. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of dismissal and granting continuity of service with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. As already noticed, the charges are very serious in nature and the same have been proved beyond any doubt. We have also carefully gone through the Enquiry Report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and of the Tribunal and we are unable to agree with the reasons given by the High Court in modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In short, the judgment of the High Court is nothing but perverse. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering dismissal of the respondent herein from service. It is ordered accordingly. The civil appeal stands allowed.
5. No costs.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1505/1996 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein. The High Court by the impugned order modified the punishment by way of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and quashed the order of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent herein. The High Court also ordered reinstatement with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits.
3. We have been taken through the charges framed against the respondent herein and also the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the order passed in the claim petition. Five charges were framed against the respondent herein. The charges are very serious in nature. The charges No.1,2,3 and 5 have been proved beyond any doubt. Charge No.4 has not been proved.
4. On a consideration of the entire materials placed before the authorities, they came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal would meet the ends of justice. When a writ petition was filed challenging the correctness of the order of dismissal, the High Court interfered with the order of dismissal on the ground that the acts complained of were sheer mistakes or errors on the part of the respondent herein and for that no punishment could be attributed to the respondent. In our opinion, the order passed by the High Court quashing the order of dismissal is nothing but the error of judgment. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of dismissal and granting continuity of service with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. As already noticed, the charges are very serious in nature and the same have been proved beyond any doubt. We have also carefully gone through the Enquiry Report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and of the Tribunal and we are unable to agree with the reasons given by the High Court in modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In short, the judgment of the High Court is nothing but perverse. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering dismissal of the respondent herein from service. It is ordered accordingly. The civil appeal stands allowed.
5. No costs.
