# Nagendra Kumar Bajpai v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 719
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-11
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagendra-kumar-bajpai-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43918
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

5 All. Nagendra Kumar Bajpai Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

719
 presence on the Parade Ground for whole day would result in hindrance of government work as his
presence, as suggested by the respondents, would be like a spectator on the Parade Ground or would only
satisfy the ego of the Superintendent of Police. An authority is under an obligation to act fairly and not on
whims. Here, from the records, it emanates that the impugned order of punishment is a colourable exercise of
powers vested in the authority, which cannot be sustained.

9. At this juncture it would be relevant to point out that apart from the certificate of Chief Medical
Officer, the petitioner has also stated that he had suffered paralytic attack for which he was treated at
Neurology Clinic. To substantiate this fact, he has enclosed the original Medical Certificate dated 10.7.2013.
It is not the case of the respondents that the aforesaid certificates are forged and fictitious documents.

10. It would be significant to point out that Paralysis of the muscles of the face, arm, and leg on one
side of the body is called hemiplegia ("hemi" means "half") and usually results from damage to the opposite
side of the brain. Damage to the nerves of the spinal cord affects different parts of the body, depending on the
amount of damage and where it occurred. Paralysis is a serious ailment and it affects not only the locomotion
of the body but it also cause loss of sense. Therefore, the disease with which petitioner was suffering, is of
serious nature and his absence from the Parade Ground cannot be said to be wilful or fall in the category of
indiscipline. Moreover, it is a settled position of law since long that if an allegation of unauthorized absence
from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in absence of such
finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct or insubordination, as alleged by the respondents.

11. For the reasons aforesaid order no. A-48/2014 dated 26.4.2014 passed by the Superintendent of
Police, Barabanki, is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.

12. Writ Petition stands allowed in above terms. Costs easy.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 10194 Of 2016

Nagendra Kumar Bajpai ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ramesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C.
.................................
Gaon Sabha Property - Representation Before High Court Only Through Standing
Counsel or Specially Appointed Counsel - Sections 72 and 73 U.P. Revenue Code 2006
Read With Appendix 2 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 - Writ Petition by Gram
Pradhan Through Private Counsel Not in State Panel Not Maintainable - Elected Gram
Pradhan filed writ petition in his personal capacity through a private counsel (not in the panel of
the State); Held, under Sections 72 and 73 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with instructions
under Appendix 2 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, representation on behalf of the Gaon
Sabha or in relation to its properties before the High Court can only be through the Standing
Counsel appointed by the State Government or a special counsel so appointed for conducting any
such case either on behalf of the Gram Panchayat or against it; the petition being in the nature of
litigation on behalf of the Gaon Sabha for protection of its property cannot be represented and
conducted through a private counsel; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn w ith liberty to the
Gaon Sabha or the Gram Pradhan to file a fresh writ petition through a duly appointed Standing
Counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

Writ Petition Dismissed as Withdrawn

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
&
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Gram Pradhan of a village in his personal
capacity through a private counsel who is not in the panel of the State. It has been
pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that on account of the legal bar contained in
Sections 72 and 73 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with instructions in this regard
under Appendix 2 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the representation on behalf of
the Gaon Sabha or in relation to its properties before the High Court has to be through
the Standing Counsel appointed by the State Government or a special counsel so
appointed for conducting any such case either on behalf of the Gram Panchayat or against
it.

2. In the instant case the petitioner who is the elected Gram Pradhan has come up
complaining of violation of law and unauthorized occupation of Gaon Sabha property for
raising a construction by the respondent no. 5.

3. The petition, therefore, is consequently in the nature of a litigation on behalf of
the Gaon Sabha for the protection of its property which can only be represented and
conducted as per the provisions of section 72 and 73 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code,
2006 by the duly appointed Standing Counsel for the said purpose before this Court.

4. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Gaon
Sabha or the Gram Pradhan to file a fresh writ petition through a duly appointed Standing
Counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
5 All. State Of U.P. & Anr. Vs Dr. Ashok Kumar & Anr.

721
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. VIJAY LAXMI, J.

Writ Petition/ Service Bench No.- 10468 Of 2016

State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Dr. Ashok Kumar & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Standing Counsel

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri I.H. Farooqui
.................................
Punishment Order Without Reasons - Non-Speaking Order Reflects Non-Application of Mind -
Recording of Reasons by Quasi-Judicial/Administrative Authority is Mandatory Requirement of
Natural Justice - State challenged Tribunal's order quashing punishment of stopping one annual increment
and awarding censure entry imposed on opposite party no.1 (Medical Officer posted at Community Health
Centre, Loni, Ghaziabad) for alleged negligence in medico-legal examination; punishing authority without
considering the explanation submitted by opposite party no.1 in reply to show cause notice dated 28.07.2011
passed punishment order dated 22.02.2012 without giving any reason for disagreeing with the explanation;
Tribunal held the punishment order to be a non-speaking order passed without considering the reply; Held,
recording of reasons by a quasi-judicial authority is one of the essential factors; reasons are the links between
the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions and they reveal a rational
nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached; requirement of recording reasons by every
quasi-judicial or administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an
individual, and communication thereof to the affected person, is one of the recognised facets of the rules of
natural justice; violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed; Tribunal's order quashing
punishment held correct; no illegality or infirmity found.

Remittance to Disciplinary Authority Not Required When Minor Punishment Awarded -
Remittance Appropriate Only Where Procedural Defect Occurs in Course of Major Punishment
Enquiry - Submission of learned Standing Counsel that where Tribunal finds a procedural irregularity in
passing punishment order, matter ought to have been remitted to the disciplinary authority rather than
quashed, repelled; Held, remittance is appropriate where procedure for major punishment has been adopted
and a defect has occurred during the course of enquiry - in such case matter ought to be remitted for further
proceedings from the stage of defect; in the present case minor punishment was awarded after calling
explanation from the delinquent employee without conducting any formal enquiry; there is no occasion or
reason to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority; writ petition dismissed.

Writ Petition Dismissed