# G.N.Shukla v. S.D.O. Sadar district Agra and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 1041
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-05
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/g-n-shukla-v-s-d-o-sadar-district-agra-and-others-42289
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Principle of "Natural Justice"-violation
thereof-when
not
fetal-explaineddismissal
on
ground
of
deliberate
disobedience to the order of superior,
negligence
in
performance
of
duty
inspite of transfer petitioner failed to
handover the public documents despite
of best effort-ultimately F.I.R. Lodged-in
disciplinary
proceeding
all
charges
proved-nothing whisper by the petitioner
for not giving the charge to the new
transfree-violation of Principle of Natural
Justice
mere
technical
plea-has
no
substance-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 12 and 14

In the facts of the case, there is
absolutely no averment in the present
writ petition qua the petitioner having
handed over the official records or that
the finding recorded in that regard being
bad. No prejudice has been pleaded nor
shown due to non-supply of the enquiry
report.

In these set of circumstances, this Court
has no hesitation to record that the plea
of violation of principles of natural
justice is only a technical plea, which has
no substance. Petitioner has hopelessly
failed to establish any prejudice which
may have been caused to him because of
non-supply of the enquiry report.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2006 SC 644; (2006) 3 SCC 150; (2008) 9
SCC 31

## Text

2 All] G.N.Shukla V. S.D.O. Sadar district Agra and others
1041
human rights of marrying a man of her own
choice, specially, when she had already got
herself married to a man. Such marriage if
upheld would only continue violation of the
basic human right of the lady.

9. With the above, which we have
recorded presently, we finally dispose of the
present petition.

10. Learned A.G.A has filed a
photocopy of the medical report after we
have dictated the order and that be kept on
record as part of the present proceeding.

11. Let learned A.G.A. inform the
Superintendent Nari Niketan, Meerut about
the
order
ofsetting
Smt.
Arti
free,
immediately.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 14097 of 1993

G.N. Shukla

 ...Petitioner
Versus
S.D.O. Sadar district Agra and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S. Prakash
Sri D. Tiwari
Sri Upasana Dubey
Sri V.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri M.C. Jain

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Principle of "Natural Justice"-violation
thereof-when
not
fetal-explaineddismissal
on
ground
of
deliberate
disobedience to the order of superior,
negligence
in
performance
of
duty
inspite of transfer petitioner failed to
handover the public documents despite
of best effort-ultimately F.I.R. Lodged-in
disciplinary
proceeding
all
charges
proved-nothing whisper by the petitioner
for not giving the charge to the new
transfree-violation of Principle of Natural
Justice
mere
technical
plea-has
no
substance-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 12 and 14

In the facts of the case, there is
absolutely no averment in the present
writ petition qua the petitioner having
handed over the official records or that
the finding recorded in that regard being
bad. No prejudice has been pleaded nor
shown due to non-supply of the enquiry
report.

In these set of circumstances, this Court
has no hesitation to record that the plea
of violation of principles of natural
justice is only a technical plea, which has
no substance. Petitioner has hopelessly
failed to establish any prejudice which
may have been caused to him because of
non-supply of the enquiry report.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2006 SC 644; (2006) 3 SCC 150; (2008) 9
SCC 31

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Petitioner before this Court was
working as the Lekhpal in the revenue
department of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Petitioner was transferred vide order dated
6th January, 1993 from area Nagla Padi to
area Angoothi, Tehsil Sadar, District Agra.
He was directed to handover the charge
including the official records in his
possession to Sri Prakash Chandra Jain.
Despite relieving officer having visited the
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
residence of the petitioner for taking over
the government records, the same were not
handed over. All attempts for the purpose
failed. Petitioner was, therefore, placed
under suspension vide order dated 30th
January, 1993 and an departmental enquiry
was initiated.

3. For non-deposit of the official
records, a first information report was also
lodged. Petitioner admittedly filed a writ
petition before this Court being writ petition
no. 8593 of 1993, challenging the order of
suspension as well as the order of transfer,
wherein no interim order was granted. As
per paragraph-24 of the present writ
petition, the writ petition remains pending.

4. Petitioner submitted his reply to the
charge memo, thereafter, the enquiry officer
submitted his report and it was recorded that
despite order of transfer having been issued
and despite there being a direction to the
petitioner to hand over the charge including
the official records to Mr. Prakash Chandra
Jain, he has neither jointed at the transferred
place nor he has handed over the official
records.

5. On the basis of the enquiry report
so received, the Competent Authority after
considering the material on record, found
that the petitioner has deliberately not
handed over the official records. It was held
that there was deliberate disobedience of the
lawful orders of the higher authority and
negligence in performance of duties by the
petitioner.
Petitioner
was
accordingly
dismissed from service under order dated
12th April, 1993.

6. It is against this order that the
present writ petition has been filed.

7. Two grounds have been pressed for
challenging the order of punishment, (a)
petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal
charge and (b) enquiry report was never
made available to the petitioner and
therefore, the order of punishment is bad.
For the second proposition, learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad
etc.ect. vs. B. Karunakar, etc. etc. reported
in AIR 1994 SC 1074.

8. So far as the first ground raised on
behalf of the petitioner is concerned, suffice
to record that the Apex Court, in the case of
South
Bengal
State
Transport
Corporation vs. Swapan Kumar Mitra &
Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 644, has
explained that acquittal in the criminal case
will not absolve the petitioner of the
charges, which were under consideration in
departmental enquiry. Therefore, in view of
the judgment of the Apex Court as aforesaid
the first ground raised on behalf of the
petitioner must fail.

9. So far as the second ground raised
on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, the
law, as laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Managing Director, ECIL (Supra)
has been explained in subsequent judgments
of the Apex Court and it has been laid down
that mere plea of violation of principles of
natural justice will not suffice, prejudice
caused must also be shown.

10. In Syndicate Bank & Ors. Vs.
Venkatesh Gururao Kurati; (2006) 3
SCC 150, the Apex Court held as under:-

"To sustain the allegation of violation
of principles of natural justice, one must
establish that prejudice has been caused to
2 All] Bhagwan Singh and others V. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and others
1043
him for non-observance of principles of
natural justice."

11. Similarly, in Haryana Financial
Corporation
&
Anr.
Vs.
Kailash
Chandra Ahuja; (2008) 9 SCC 31, the
Apex Court held that a party must satisfy
the Court as what prejudice has been caused
to it by non observance of those principles.

12. In the facts of the case, there is
absolutely no averment in the present writ
petition qua the petitioner having handed
over the official records or that the finding
recorded in that regard being bad. No
prejudice has been pleaded nor shown due
to non-supply of the enquiry report.

13. This Court made a pointed query
to the learned counsel for the petitioner to
point out from any pleading on record or
from the document, as to when the
petitioner handed over the official records,
which were in his custody while working as
Lekhpal before issuance of the order of
transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioner
hopelessly failed to refer to any pleading or
any evidence on record for disputing the
finding qua the official records have not
been handed over by the petitioner.

14. In these set of circumstances, this
Court has no hesitation to record that the
plea of violation of principles of natural
justice is only a technical plea, which has no
substance. Petitioner has hopelessly failed
to establish any prejudice which may have
been caused to him because of non-supply
of the enquiry report.

15. For the said reasons, this Court
finds no good ground to interfere with the
order of punishment.

16. The present writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.

17. Interim order, if any, stands
discharged.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 3172 of 1996

Bhagwan Singh and others ...Petitioner
Versus
District
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari
and
Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri K.S. Shukla
Sri S.G. Hasnain

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226cancellation of appointment as assistant
teacher
in
Primary
School-petitioner
were
appointed
on
compassionate
ground on class IVth post-representation
for appointment as assistant teacher
duly
recommended
by
Education
Superintendent-appointment
letter
issued-after joining their appointment
canceled with direction to join their
original post of class 4th-held-properafter joining as class 4th-compassionate
appointment can not be claimed as
assistant
teacher-recommendation
of
education superintendent meaninglesspetition dismissed.

Held: Para 21

Even if it is assumed that services on the
post of Assistant Teacher were vacant,
the same were to be filled up by