# Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 727
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-17
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 7517 of 2020
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45791
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Termination - Violation
of principles of natural justice - The
question as to what extent, principles of
natural
justice
are
required
to
be
complied with would depend upon the
fact situation obtaining in each case. The
principles of natural justice cannot be
applied in vacuum. (Para 11)

The impugned order dated 15.02.2020 does
not in substance amount to any fresh order of
termination, it is merely an order passed as a
consequence of the dismissal of the writ
petition preferred by the petitioner against the
order dated
20.10.1989 terminating the
service of the petitioner. Moreover, the
reasons indicated in the impugned order have
not been disputed and rather stand admitted
in the present writ petition. Hence the
question of providing opportunity of hearing
does not arise before passing the order dated
15.02.2020. It is in fact an order of
discontinuance
of
service
which
was
continuing on the basis of interim order of a
dismissed writ petition. (Para 5, 6)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

6 All. Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 727
difficulty in order to be bound by it. [See
Krishna Kumar Vs. Union of India21].

31. In light of the aforesaid, we
conclude that the reference itself is not
merited as there is no conflict of opinion
in the decisions referred by the learned
Single Judge. We, however, clarified the
law (with the help of the long line of
decisions of the Supreme Court) in order
to lend a quietus to the doubts which
appear to exist so that to avoid any further
delay in the proceedings.

32. Reformulated question no. (iii)
of the Reference is, thus, answered in
negative.

33. Reference
stands
answered,
accordingly. The individual writ petitions
and Special Appeals may now be placed
before the appropriate Bench for disposal
in light of the above.
----------
(2020)06ILR A727
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.06.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 7517 of 2020

Anil Kumar Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hari Om Singh.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Termination - Violation
of principles of natural justice - The
question as to what extent, principles of
natural
justice
are
required
to
be
complied with would depend upon the
fact situation obtaining in each case. The
principles of natural justice cannot be
applied in vacuum. (Para 11)

The impugned order dated 15.02.2020 does
not in substance amount to any fresh order of
termination, it is merely an order passed as a
consequence of the dismissal of the writ
petition preferred by the petitioner against the
order dated
20.10.1989 terminating the
service of the petitioner. Moreover, the
reasons indicated in the impugned order have
not been disputed and rather stand admitted
in the present writ petition. Hence the
question of providing opportunity of hearing
does not arise before passing the order dated
15.02.2020. It is in fact an order of
discontinuance
of
service
which
was
continuing on the basis of interim order of a
dismissed writ petition. (Para 5, 6)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1.
Dharmarathmakara
R.A.
Ramaswamy
Mudaliar Ed. Institution Vs The Educational
Appellate Tribunal & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3219
(Para 9)

2. Ashok Kumar Vs U.O.I. . & ors. (Para 10)

3.
Karnataka
State
Road
Transport
Corporation & anr. Vs S.G. Kotturappa and
Another, (2005) 3 SCC 409) (Para 11)

4. Punjab National Bank and Others Vs
Manjeet Singh & anr. , (2006) 8 SCC 647
(Para 12)

Petition
challenges
order
dated
15.02.2020,
passed
by
Settlement
Officer Consolidation, Sitapur, U.P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the
order
dated
15.02.2020
passed
by
Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Settlement
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officer Consolidation, Sitapur, by which
the services of the petitioner has been
terminated.

2. The impugned order dated
15.02.2020 states that by order dated
20.10.1989 passed by the Commissioner
Consolidation,
Lucknow,
U.P.,
the
services of the petitioner was terminated.
Against the order dated 20.10.1989, the
petitioner preferred a Writ Petition
No.9578 of 1989. In the said writ petition
an interim order had been granted by this
Court. In pursuance of interim order the
petitioner was continuing in service, the
writ petition however was dismissed on
12.04.2010. But the petitioner has not
informed
the
authorities.
Two
applications were also dismissed on
26.04.2019. Hence the continuance of
petitioner in service was due to the fact
that the authorities has no knowledge
hence the continuance was not legal. In
the said circumstances there was no
justification for his continuance in service
hence his services is terminated with
immediate effect.

3. Heard the learned counsels for the
parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner
heard on telephone as he expressed his
inability
to
connect
on
video
conferencing. He mainly submitted that
prior to the passing of the order dated
15.02.2020 neither any show cause notice
has been issued nor any opportunity was
provided to the petitioner. The order
dated 15.02.2020 has been passed in
complete violation of the principles of
natural justice.

4. On the other hand, Shri Rahul
Shukla,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
through
video
conferencing has pointed out that the
C.M. Application Nos.30478/2019 and
30479/2019 has also been rejected by this
Court vide its order dated 26.04.2019
even that has not been informed by the
petitioner. The petitioner was continuing
in the service only due to the interim
order dated 07.11.1989. The opportunity
of hearing is not required in the present
case. It has further been submitted by the
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel that the petitioner has neither
informed the dismissal of the writ petition
in the year 2010 nor the dismissal of the
applications moved in the year 2019.

5. After hearing the counsels for
both the parties the position which
emerges is that the petitioner was
continuing in the service in the garb of the
interim order dated 07.11.1989. The Writ
Petition
No.16815(W)/9578/1989
was
dismissed in default on 12.04.2010. The
restoration application was filed in the
year 2019 has also been dismissed on
26.04.2019 and none of the reasons
indicated in the order dated 15.02.2020
has been disputed by the petitioner, rather
stand admitted in the writ petition
particularly in Para 24 where it is also
stated that a restoration application is
pending but without disclosing the dates
of applications it however, establishes the
fact that his writ petition had been
dismissed on default. The date of
dismissal of writ petition on 12.04.2010
as disclosed in the impugned order has
not been disputed nor the date of
dismissal
of
two
miscellaneous
applications, which obviously might have
been moved earlier for restoration.

6. The order impugned in the
present writ petition i.e. order dated
15.02.2020 does not in substance amount
to any fresh order of termination, it is
6 All. Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 729
merely an order passed as a consequence
of the dismissal of the Writ Petition
No.16815(W)/9578/1989 preferred by the
petitioner
against
the
order
dated
20.10.1989 terminating the service of the
petitioner.
Hence
the
question
of
providing opportunity of hearing does not
arise before passing the order dated
15.02.2020. It is in fact an order of
discontinuance of service which were
continuing on the basis of interim order of
a dismissed writ petition.

7. The fact of order terminating the
services of the petitioner vide order dated
20.10.1989 and the fact that a writ
petition was preferred and further writ
petition was dismissed about ten years
ago having been controverted in the writ
petition.

8. In consequence of that order
irrespective of language used in the order
but in substance, as mentioned in the order
itself. It is a consequence of dismissal of
writ petition.

9. As far as the argument of learned
counsel of the petitioner regarding noncompliance of principle of audi alteram
partem. The Apex Court in the case of
Dharmarathmakara R.A. Ramaswamy
Mudaliar
Ed.
Institution
Vs.
The
Educational Appellate Tribunal & Anr.
has held that in a case where allegation and
charges are admitted and no possible
defence is placed before the authority
concerned. What enquiry is to be made
when one admits violations? In the present
case, the facts are almost admitted. The case
reveals itself and is apparent on the face of
the record and in spite of opportunity no
worthwhile explanation is forthcoming and
it is not a fit case to interfere with the order
impugned in the writ petition.

10. The Apex Court in the case of
Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India &
Others has held as follows.:-

"This bring us to the question as to
whether the principles of natural justice
were required to be complied with. There
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the
audi alteram partem is one of the basic
pillar of natural justice which means no one
should be condemned unheard. However,
whenever possible the principle of natural
justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a
case of this nature the same should be
complied with. Visitor may in a given
situation issue notice to the employee who
would be effected by the ultimate order that
may be passed. He may not be given an
oral hearing, but may be allowed to make a
representation in writing.

It is also, however, well-settled that it
cannot be put any straight jacket formula. It
may not be in a given case applied unless a
prejudice is shown. It is not necessary
where it would be a futile exercise.

A court of law does not insist on
compliance of useless formality. It will
not issue any such direction where the
result would remain the same, in view of
the fact situation prevailing or in terms of
the legal consequences."

11. In the case of Karnataka State
Road
Transport
Corporation
and
Another v. S.G. Kotturappa and
Another reported at [(2005) 3SCC
409)] the Apex Court has held as under:-

"The question as to what extent,
principles of natural justice are required
to be complied with would depend upon
the fact situation obtaining in each case.
The principles of natural justice cannot
be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put
in any straitjacket formula. The principles
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of natural justice are furthermore not
required to be complied with when it will
lead to an empty formality. What is
needed for the employer in a case of this
nature is to apply the objective criteria
for arriving at the subjective satisfaction.
If the criteria required for arriving at an
objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the
principles of natural justice may not have
to be complied with, in view of the fact
that the same stood complied with before
imposing
punishments
upon
the
respondents on each occasion and, thus,
the respondents, therefore, could not have
improved their stand even if a further
opportunity was given."

12. In the case of Punjab National
Bank and Others v. Manjeet Singh and
Another reported at [(2006) 8 SCC 647)],
this Court has held as under:-

"The principles of natural justice
were also not required to be complied
with as the same would have been an
empty formality. The court will not insist
on compliance with the principles of
natural justice in view of the binding
nature of the award. Their application
would be limited to a situation where the
factual position or legal implication
arising thereunder is disputed and not
where it is not in dispute or cannot be
disputed. If only one conclusion is
possible, a writ would not issue only
because there was a violation of the
principle of natural justice."

13. Hence, under the undisputed
facts of the present case in any manner
render the impugned order invalid on
account of providing any opportunity
prior to passing of impugned order. In
these circumstances providing of an
opportunity of hearing would merely be
an empty formality and would be of no
avail and a futile exercise.

14. Under these circumstances and
reasons and law discussed hereinabove, I
do not find any illegality or irregularity in
the impugned order dated 15.02.2020
passed by Opposite Party No.3 there is no
merit in the case and hence, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A730
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12780 of 2018

Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Equal right of pensionary benefit - Protection
against arbitrariness - Held - Once the
services
of
the
petitioners
have
been
acknowledged, then there is hardly any scope
to deprive them the pensionary benefits, as
are available to other public servants - Equal
protection of laws must mean the protection
of equal laws for all persons similarly - Article
14 strikes at arbitrariness because an arbitrary
provision involves negation equality. The law
is never been stagnated - An artificial
classification
has
to
be
made
by
the
respondent authorities while passing the order
impugned amongst the Government servants,
who are eligible for pension. The distinction