# Atma Singh v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 548
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-12-12
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 11867 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atma-singh-v-u-p-state-bridge-corporation-ltd-anr-47445
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Limitation of time fixed by the High Court
- Non compliance thereof - No leave of
High Court sought - It's effect - Held,
where there is a stipulation of time by the
Court, it will not be open to the employer
to disregard that stipulation unless the
time is extended by the Court itself on the
application
of
the
department
-
Punishment of censure entry was held
illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted and in
violation of the decision of Full Bench of
this
Court
in
Abhishek
Prabhakar
Awasthi's case. -. (Para 23 and 26)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material, the employee would be entitled
for the benefits w.e.f. the date when it was
due to him.

16. Admittedly, in the present case,
the issue of the petitioner was kept under
sealed cover on 19.7.2018 for the reason he
was awarded adverse entry vide order dated
12.12.2018 and after setting aside the order
dated 12.12.2018, which was adverse
material before the DPC held on 19.7.2018,
the petitioner was legally entitled for the
promotion as per recommendation of DPC
dated 19.7.2018.

17. Therefore, in view of the above,
the writ petition is allowed.

A writ in the nature of certiorari
is issued quashing the orders dated
4.1.2021 and 5.6.2020 passed by opposite
party
no.1, which
are
contained
in
Annexure Nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition. A
writ in the nature of mandamus is issued
commanding the opposite parties to open
the sealed cover of the petitioner and
promote him on the post of Superintending
Engineer in view of the recommendation of
Departmental
Promotion
Committee
convened on 19.7.2018 from the date the
other incumbents were considered for
promotion
pursuant
to
such
recommendation.

18. The petitioner shall be entitled for
all consequential service benefits.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A548
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.08.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 11867 of 2020
&
Service Single No. 12047 of 2021

Atma Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashok Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shishir Jain, Ram Ratan

A. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Limitation of time fixed by the High Court
- Non compliance thereof - No leave of
High Court sought - It's effect - Held,
where there is a stipulation of time by the
Court, it will not be open to the employer
to disregard that stipulation unless the
time is extended by the Court itself on the
application
of
the
department
-
Punishment of censure entry was held
illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted and in
violation of the decision of Full Bench of
this
Court
in
Abhishek
Prabhakar
Awasthi's case. -. (Para 23 and 26)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi Vs New India
Assurance Company Ltd. & ors. 2014 (6) ADJ
641.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram
Ratan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of first writ petition i.e.
Service Single No. 11867 of 2020, the
petitioner has prayed following reliefs:-
9 All Atma Singh Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
549

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Uttar Pradesh Uttar
Pradesh State Bridge Corporation, the
Respondent No. 1 and its Managing
Director, the Respondent No.2 to grant the
promotion, with all consequential benefits,
to
the
Petitioner
with
effect
from
08.03.2019,
the
date
on
which
the
promotion was granted to his juniors on the
post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).

(ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Uttar Pradesh State
Bridge Corporation, the Respondent No. l
and its Managing Director, the respondent
no.2 to allow the benefit of 1st and 2nd
ACP w.e.f. 2008 and 2014 respectively and
consequently re-fix the pay of the petitioner
and arrears of salary accrued as such be
also paid with interest @ 18% per annum
thereupon from due upto the date of actual
payment.

(iii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
Enquiry
Report
dated
27.02.2020,
show-cause
notice
dated
13.03.2020
and
Charge-sheet
dated
09.10.2015 contained as Annexure Nos. 1,
2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.

(iv) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Managing Director, the
respondent no.2 not to proceed against the
petitioner on the basis of Enquiry Report
dated 27.02.2020, show-cause notice dated
13.03.2020
and
Charge-sheet
dated
09.10.2015."

3. By means of second writ petition
i.e. Service Single No. 12047 of 2021, the
following prayers have been made:-

"(i) issue an order, direction or
writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned
punishment
order
dated
02.06.2021 as contained in Annexure No.1
to the writ petition with all consequential
benefits.

(ii) issue an order, direction or
writ
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding the opposite parties not to
implement the impugned punishment order
dated 02.06.2021 as contained in Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition."

4. Since both the writ petitions are of
the
same
petitioner
and
issues
are
interrelated, therefore, with the consent of
respective parties I hereby dispose of both
the
writ
petitions
by
this
common
judgment.

5. The questions to be considered in
both the writ petitions are that as to
whether the departmental enquiry can be
conducted and concluded beyond the
period so stipulated by the Court without
taking leave in view of the decision of Full
Bench of this Court in re:- Abhishek
Prabhakar
Awasthi
vs.
New
India
Assurance Company Limited and Others
[reported in 2014 (6) ADJ 641]. Secondly,
as to whether if any punishment order is
awarded pursuant to the departmental
enquiry so conducted and concluded
beyond the period so stipulated by the
Court without taking leave can be sustained
in the eyes of law.

6. The brief facts of the case are that
the petitioner was appointed on the post of
Junior Engineer (Civil) in the U.P. State
Bridge Corporation Ltd.

7. The disciplinary proceedings for
the alleged shortcoming in the Central
Store (Civil) at Bridge Construction Unit,
Saidpur was instituted against the petitioner
and a charge-sheet dated 09.10.2015 was
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued and served upon the petitioner to
which
he
has
submitted
reply
on
31.10.2015 denying the charges levelled
against
him
annexing
therewith
documentary evidence.

8. On 20.03.2016, the Presenting
Officer has submitted the departmental
comments on the reply of the petitioner
dated 31.10.2015 to the Enquiry Officer.
Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has fixed a
date for personal hearing on 23.04.2016
and
submitted
enquiry
report
on
09.11.2016.

9. Thereafter, on 30.11.2016 the
disciplinary authority-respondent no.2 has
issued show-cause notice to the petitioner
annexing therewith the copy of the enquiry
report dated 09.11.2016 reply thereof has
been submitted by the petitioner on
13.12.2016.

10. During the pendency of the
aforesaid
enquiry,
a
notice
dated
03.03.2017 was issued to the petitioner by
the General Manager calling upon him to
show cause as to why recovery of a sum of
Rs.14,93,546/- may not be made from him
for the same issue for which enquiry was
pending reply thereof has been submitted
by the petitioner on 23.03.2017.

11. When the petitioner came to know
about the promotion of certain Junior
Engineers
on
the
post
of
Assistant
Engineers who are junior to the petitioner,
he moved an application to the respondent
no.2 with a request to take decision in
respect of promotion of the petitioner on
the post of Assistant Engineer.

12. The disciplinary authority instead
of taking any decision in the pending
enquiry
issued
a
show-cause
notice
(second) dated 25.06.2019 to the petitioner
annexing therewith the copy of enquiry
report dated 04.06.2019 to which the
petitioner has submitted his reply on
10.07.2019 (Annexure No.16). Moreover,
he had specifically mentioned in the reply
that he had never been informed about the
enquiry giving rise to enquiry report dated
04.06.2019.

13. The petitioner feeling aggrieved
from the enquiry report dated 04.06.2019,
show-cause notice dated 25.06.2019 as well
as notice of recovery dated 03.03.2017 had
preferred the Writ Petition No. 22962 (S/S)
of 2019, impugning the same before this
Court. The Court vide judgment and order
dated 13.11.2019 disposed of the aforesaid
writ petition setting aside the show-cause
notice dated 25.06.2019, the enquiry report
dated 04.06.2019 as well as the notice of
recovery dated 03.03.2019 (it should be
03.03.2017). However, it was left open to
the
respondents
to
continue
with
departmental
proceedings
against
the
petitioner and taking the same to its logical
end. Moreover, the Court had also
commanded that as the departmental
enquiry is pending against the petitioner
since 2015, therefore, departmental enquiry
shall be concluded and final order would be
passed within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of the
judgment. The operative portion of the
judgment and order dated 13.11.2019 is
being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of after setting-aside the order
dated 25.06.2019 and inquiry report dated
04.06.2019 as well as notice dated
03.03.2019
leaving
it
open
for
the
respondents to continue with departmental
proceedings against the petitioner and
taking the same to their logical end. It is
9 All Atma Singh Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
551
also provided as the departmental inquiry
is pending against the petitioner since
2015, the said proceedings shall be
concluded and final order would be passed
within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. Needless to mention that the
petitioner would cooperate in the inquiry."

14. On 19.11.2019, the certified copy
of the judgment and order dated 13.11.2019
was sent by counsel for the petitioner
through Speed Post to the Managing
Director. A letter dated 23.12.2019 was
issued by the Chief Project Manager
(Complaint) addressing to the Chief Project
Manager, (Ayodhya)/Enquiry Officer to
complete the enquiry pending against the
petitioner in the light of judgment and order
dated 13.11.2019.

15. The Chief Project Manager
(Ayodhya) vide letter dated 15.01.2020
intimated the petitioner that 24.01.2020 is
the date fixed for the enquiry but the
enquiry proceedings were not held on that
date as the Enquiry Officer was busy in
some other work. On 31.01.2020, the
petitioner
again
appeared
before
the
Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer
had submitted the enquiry report on
27.02.2020 to the Chief Project Manager.
(Complaint).

16. Thereafter, on 13.03.2020 the
disciplinary authority issued a show-cause
notice to the petitioner annexing therewith
the enquiry report dated 27.02.2020 and the
reply thereof has been submitted by the
petitioner on 30.03.2020 wherein he had
specifically mentioned that no enquiry,
whatsoever, has been conducted as per law
and rules even after the judgment and order
dated 13.11.2019. On the contrary the
enquiry report dated 27.02.2020 itself
reveals that the same is reproduction of the
earlier enquiry report dated 04.06.2019
(which was set-aside vide judgment and
order dated 13.11.2019).

17. Vide letter dated 6.6.2020, the
General Manager (Complaint) asked the
petitioner to submit his reply to the showcause notice dated 13.03.2020 as he has not
submitted the reply and the matter is being
delayed. Thereafter, the petitioner in his
letter dated 12.06.2020 informed the
General Manager (Complaint) that he had
already submitted his reply on 30.03.2020
to the show-cause notice dated 13.03.2020
through e-mail on 31.03.2020 to the office
of the Managing Director.

18. In spite of lapse of time fixed by
the Court vide judgment and order dated
13.11.2019, the respondents again kept the
disciplinary proceedings pending and that
too the detriment of the petitioner.

19. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved,
by the illegal action of the respondents had
again approached this Court through Writ
Petition No. 11867 (S/S) of 2020. The
Court vide order dated 29.7.2020 directed
the counsel for the respondents to satisfy
the Court as to why further time should be
granted in a proceeding which is pending
since 2012 i.e. for the past eight years
keeping in mind the law laid down by the
Full Bench of this Court. The Hon'ble
Court further directed to produce the record
of disciplinary proceedings or file an
affidavit.

20. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no
dispute that the certified copy of the
judgment and order dated 13.11.2019 was
provided
to
the
competent
authority
through registered post dated 19.11.2019
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
the
competent
authority
took
cognizance of the said judgment and order
vide letter dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure
No.20 of the second writ petition).
Therefore, the enquiry in question must
have been concluded and final order must
have been passed on or before 23.04.2020,
the period of four months as stipulated vide
judgment and order dated 13.11.2019.
However, the certified copy of the
judgment and order dated 13.11.2019 has
been sent to the Managing Director through
registered post on 19.11.2019 and if the
five days period is counted for the service
in that case the departmental enquiry must
have been concluded and final order must
have been passed on or before 24.03.2020
i.e. four months' period.

21. To be more precise, the maximum
period of four months was provided to the
disciplinary authority to pass final order
taking the cognizance of the enquiry report
but no final order was passed within a
maximum period of four months as
stipulated by this Court vide judgment and
order dated 13.11.2019.

22. On being confronted the learned
counsel for the opposite parties as to why
the final order has not been passed within
time stipulated by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 13.11.2019, he
could not explain the appropriate reason
to this effect. On being further confronted
learned counsel for the respondent as to
why the Managing Director has not given
reference of the judgment and order dated
13.11.2019 whereby the rider of four
months have been imposed for passing
final order, in the impugned order dated
02.06.2021, again the learned counsel for
the respondents could not justify the
inaction of the Managing Director. On a
pinpoint query as to whether any leave
was granted by the Court extending the
time for passing final order, the learned
counsel for the respondent has submitted
that no such leave was granted. Then
another pinpoint query was made from
him seeking explanation that despite
about fourteen months delay which has
been caused in passing final order on
02.06.2021, the impugned order which is
contained as Annexure no.1 to the second
writ petition, neither any reason of such
delay has been explained nor any
plausible explanation has been given by
the learned counsel for the respondents.
Lastly, he has been asked as to why the
enquiry of the year 2012 has been
concluded after about nine years when
the final order is passed on 02.06.2021,
there was no cogent explanation with
learned counsel for the respondent.

23. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned Office Memo
dated 02.06.2021 passed by the Managing
Director which is contained as Annexure
no.1 to the second writ petition whereby
the direction for making recovery of
Rs.13,84,290/- with punishment of censure
entry
is
apparently
illegal,
arbitrary,
unwarranted and in violation of the
decision of Full Bench of this Court in re:-
Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (supra).

24. Before the Full Bench in re:-
Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (supra) two
questions were referred for adjudication
which have been indicated in para 2 of the
judgment as under:-

"2. The following questions have
been referred in the order of the learned
Single Judge for determination by the Full
Bench:-
9 All Atma Singh Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
553

"(a)
Whether
if
an
inquiry
proceeding is not concluded within a time
frame fixed by a court and concluded
thereafter, without seeking extension from
the Court then on the said ground the
entire inquiry proceeding as well as
punishment order passed, is vitiated in view
of the judgment in the case of P.N.
Srivastava; and

(b) Whether the law as laid down
by a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of P.N. Srivastava that if an inquiry
proceeding is not concluded within a time
frame as fixed by a Court, it stands vitiated
is still a good law in view of the judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case
of Suresh Chandra as well as a judgment
dated 27.07.2009 of a Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 1056 (SB) of
2009 (Union of India and others Vs.
Satendra Kumar Sahai and another)."

25. The Full Bench in Para 19 was
pleased to answer those questions as
under:-

"19. In view of the above
discussion, we now proceed to answer the
questions which have been referred to the
Full Bench.

(A) Question No. (a): We hold
that if an enquiry is not concluded within
the time which has been fixed by the Court,
it is open to the employer to seek an
extension of time by making an appropriate
application to the court setting out the
reasons for the delay in the conclusion of
the enquiry. In such an event, it is for the
court to consider whether time should be
extended,
based
on
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case. However, where
there is a stipulation of time by the Court, it
will not be open to the employer to
disregard that stipulation and an extension
of time must be sought;

(B)
Question
No.
(b):
The
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Suresh Chandra (supra) as well as the
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar
Sahai (supra) clearly indicate that a mere
delay on the part of the employer in
concluding a disciplinary enquiry will not
ipso facto nullify the entire proceedings in
every case. The court which has fixed a
stipulation of time has jurisdiction to
extend the time and it is open to the court,
while exercising that jurisdiction, to
consider whether the delay has been
satisfactorily explained. The court can
suitably extend time for conclusion of the
enquiry either in a proceeding instituted by
the employee challenging the enquiry on
the ground that it was not completed within
the stipulated period or even upon an
independent application moved by the
employer. The court has the inherent
jurisdiction to grant an extension of time,
the original stipulation of time having been
fixed by the court itself. Such an extension
of time has to be considered in the interests
of justice balancing both the need for
expeditious conclusion of the enquiry in the
interests of fairness and an honest
administration. In an appropriate case, it
would be open to the Court to extend time
suo motu in order to ensure that a serious
charge
of
misconduct
does
not
go
unpunished leading to a serious detriment
to the public interest. The court has
sufficient powers to grant an extension of
time both before and after the period
stipulated by the court has come to an
end."

26. The crux of the decision of Full
Bench of this Court is that where there is a
stipulation of time by the Court, it will not
be open to the employer to disregard that
stipulation unless the time is extended by
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Court itself on the application of the
department. In the present case, admittedly,
no such application for extension of time
has been moved by the department and
despite taking cognizance of the fact that
this Court vide judgment and order dated
13.11.2019 has stipulated maximum period
of four months to pass final order
considering the enquiry report and such
period of four months was being expired on
23.04.2020, if the letter of the Chief Project
Manager is taken into account (Annexure
no.20 to the second writ petition) or on
24.03.2020 if the date of registered post
dated 19.11.2019 intimating the order dated
13.11.2019 is taken into account giving
advantage of five days of service of the
registered post. In any case, the final order
must have been passed on or before
23.04.2020
after
conclusion
of
the
departmental enquiry but the final order has
been passed on 02.06.2021 (Annexure
No.1) awarding punishment of recovery
and censure entry to the petitioner.

27. In view of what has been
considered above, the impugned order
dated 02.06.2021 passed by the Managing
Director which is contained as Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition is not sustainable
in the eyes of law being illegal, arbitrary
and unwarranted viz a viz violative of the
direction being issued by the Full Bench of
this Court in re:- Abhishek Prabhakar
Awasthi (supra).

28. Accordingly, the second writ
petition is hereby allowed.

29. Since the orders impugned in the
first writ petition have been merged in the
final order dated 02.06.2021 impugned in
the second writ petition and the second writ
petition has been allowed, therefore, the
first writ petition shall be deemed to have
been allowed in view of the aforesaid
terms, accordingly, the first writ petition is
allowed.

30. The writ in the nature of certiorari
is issued quashing the Office Memo dated
02.06.2021 passed by the Managing
Director, U.P. State Bridge Corporation
Ltd., Lucknow which is contained as
Annexure No.01 to the writ petition.

31. The writ of mandamus is issued
commanding the opposite parties not to
implement the punishment order dated
02.06.2021 against the petitioner as the
same has been quashed thereby providing
all consequential service benefit to the
petitioner.

32. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A554
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 13760 of 2020

Manjul Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pravin Kumar, Sri Karma Singh Yadav,
Sri Rahul Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Appointment on the post
of Assistant Teacher - Use of forged and
manufactured
documents
of
TET
certificate
-
No
rebuttal
of
to the