# P.N. Shukla v. The Chairman, U.P.State Handloom Co. Ltd. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 819
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-09-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19495 of 1995
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, Shishir Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/p-n-shukla-v-the-chairman-u-p-state-handloom-co-ltd-and-others-41521
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Shiv Nath Singh

U.P. State Handloom Corporation (Staff
and Officers Condition of Service RulesRule-11-Natural
Justice
termination
without holding enquiry without show
cause notice-held-illegal petitioner may
or
may
not
be
regular
employeeawarding major punishment without
enquiry-held-not sustainable.

Held: Para 4

We are of the view that petitioner may or
may
not
be
regular
government
employee
or
employee
under
other
authorities but the question of natural
justice
at
the
time
of
awarding
punishment particularly in respect of
major punishment enquiry cannot be
dispensed with. There is no scope to
defending the issue by filing an affidavit
nor we are satisfied, if any such plea has
been taken by the respondents herein.
Therefore,
in
totality
the
order
of
punishment to be quashed along with
the appellate order and the order of
recovery.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2463,
(2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 129.

## Text

3 All] P.N. Shukla V. The Chairman, U.P.State Handloom Co. Ltd. and others

819
in favour of scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes can be accepted since the
Government order dated 30th June, 2009
has been issued by the State Government
in exercise of power under Article 15(4)
of the Constitution of India providing for
a special provision for advancement of
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

28. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the Government order dated
30th June, 2009 cannot be held to be
violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India and it does not
deserve to be quashed. No ground is made
out to quash the Government order dated
30th June, 2009.

The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19495 of 1995

P.N. Shukla

...Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Uttar Pradesh, State
Handloom Corporation Limited, Lucknow
and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.B. Singh
Sri Vijay Sinha
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri Chandan Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shiv Nath Singh

U.P. State Handloom Corporation (Staff
and Officers Condition of Service RulesRule-11-Natural
Justice
termination
without holding enquiry without show
cause notice-held-illegal petitioner may
or
may
not
be
regular
employeeawarding major punishment without
enquiry-held-not sustainable.

Held: Para 4

We are of the view that petitioner may or
may
not
be
regular
government
employee
or
employee
under
other
authorities but the question of natural
justice
at
the
time
of
awarding
punishment particularly in respect of
major punishment enquiry cannot be
dispensed with. There is no scope to
defending the issue by filing an affidavit
nor we are satisfied, if any such plea has
been taken by the respondents herein.
Therefore,
in
totality
the
order
of
punishment to be quashed along with
the appellate order and the order of
recovery.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2463,
(2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 129.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
order of termination dated 18th March,
1994 by saying that it is illegal, arbitrary
and has been caused in flagrant violation
of principles of natural justice.

2. It appears to this Court that
neither any enquiry proceeding was
initiated nor any cause has been shown
for dispensation of such enquiry by the
respondents authority. Only by way of
affidavit, the respondents wanted to
establish the case that there is no
necessity of enquiry. Therefore, their case
is for violation of principle of natural
justice. Rule 11 of the Rules relating to
U.P. State Handloom Corporation (Staff
and Officers Conditions of Service Rules)
speaks as follows:-
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

"11. Procedure for imposing major
penalties:-

(i) No order imposing any of the major
penalties shall be made except after an
enquiry held in accordance with this subrule.

(ii) Whenever the disciplinary authority
is of the opinion that there are grounds
for enquiring into the truth of any
imputations against an employee, it may
itself enquire into the truth thereof or may
appoint any officer (hereinafter called the
enquiring officer) for the purpose.

(iii) Where it is proposed to hold such
enquiry, the disciplinary authority shall
frame definite charges on the basis of the
allegations against the employee. The
charges,
together
with
the
said
allegations, shall be communicated in
writing to the employee who shall be
required to submit within a reasonable
time a written statement whether he
admits or denies any or all of the charges.
He shall also be required to state whether
he desires to be heard in person, whether
he desires to cross-examine any of the
witnesses proposed to be produced
against him and also whether he has any
witnesses to produced in his defence, and,
if so, what each witness is expected to
testify. He shall also give the full
particulars and the address of each
witness.

Note:-
the
charge-sheet
shall
be
accompanied by copies of any statement
made previously in any informal and
confidential enquiry into the allegations
against the employee. Further, below
each charge shall be listed the documents
and proofs proposed to be taken into
account at the enquiry and the particulars
of any witnesses proposed to be examined
in support of each charge.

(iv) Before
submitting
his
written
statement of defence to the enquiring
officer the charged employee may ask to
be allowed to inspect the documents cited
in the charge-sheet or any other relevant
records and / or also ask for copies of any
relevant documents. Reasonable facilities
for inspection will be allowed to him and
he may be supplied with copies of such
documents as, in the opinion of the
enquiring officer, are such that the
requirements of reasonable opportunity of
defence cannot be fulfilled without their
inspection or the supply of copies, as the
case may be.

(v) The
disciplinary
authority
may
nominate any officer to be known as the
presenting officer to present on its behalf
of the case in support of the charges.

(vi) The charged employee may take the
assistance of anyone of his colleagues in
the Corporation, but shall not engage any
legal practitioner for the purpose.

(vii) On the date fixed for hearing by the
enquiring
officer
the
oral
and
documentary
officer
the
oral
and
documentary evidence by which the
charges are proposed to be proved shall
be considered.

(viii) the enquiring officer may allow the
production of evidence no specified in the
charge-sheet or may him-self call for new
evidence or recall or re-examine any
witness. In such a case the charged
employee shall be given an opportunity to
inspect the documentary evidence brought
on record or to cross-examine a witness
who has been so summoned.
3 All] P.N. Shukla V. The Chairman, U.P.State Handloom Co. Ltd. and others

821
(ix) The evidence on behalf of the
charged employee shall then be produced.
The employee may himself have his
statement recorded as a witness in his
own behalf of he so chooses. The
witnesses produced by the employee shall
then be examined, cross-examined and reexamined, as may be necessary, with
power to the enquiring officer to put any
question to any witness.

(x) The enquiring officer may, after the
the employee closes his case, generally
question him on the circumstances
appearing against him in the prosecution
evidence with a view to enabling the
employee to explain any circumstances
appearing in the evidence produced
against him.

Provided that such questioning may
not be necessary if the employee has
already given his statement as a witness
and in the course of which the enquiring
officer has already questioned him as
aforesaid."

Respondents want to establish their
case on the basis of Service Rules of U.P.
State Handloom Corporation Ltd. Rule
16(1) (c ) is being quoted below:-

"where the disciplinary authority is
satisfied that, in the interest of the basic
principles underlying the incorporations
of the Corporation and its effective
functioning or in the interest of the
security of the country, it is not expedient
to hold an enquiry in the manner provided
for in these subrules."

3. However, even if the same is
applicable with a specific case even then
some cause will have to be shown for the
purpose of dispensation of the inquiry.
We have not seen that any such step has
been taken by the authority on the ground
of dismissal or recovery of amount of
Rs.49.75 lacs on the ground of alleged
embezzlement. The learned counsel for
respondents further cited the judgement
reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court
2463 Union Public Service Commission
V. Dr. Jamuna Kurup & Ors. to
establish that a Municipal Corporation is
not
'government'
and
municipal
employees are not government servants
governed by Articles 309 and 311 of the
Constitution of India. He has further cited
a judgement in support of his contention
reported in (2006) 8 Supreme Court
Cases, 129 Indu Shekhar Singh and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others. It
has been stated that right of seniority is
not a fundamental right. It is merely a
civil right. Controversy is not related to
seniority,
therefore,
the
ratio
is
inapplicable herein. In any event, in para
32 and 37 of counter affidavit, there is an
admission on the part of the respondents
that
only
after
calling
reply,
the
punishment has been imposed. Therefore,
the dispute is whether the authority has
infringed the principle of natural justice at
the time of awarding punishment or not.

4. We are of the view that petitioner
may or may not be regular government
employee or employee under other
authorities but the question of natural
justice
at
the
time
of
awarding
punishment particularly in respect of
major punishment enquiry cannot be
dispensed with. There is no scope to
defending the issue by filing an affidavit
nor we are satisfied, if any such plea has
been taken by the respondents herein.
Therefore, in totality the order of
punishment to be quashed along with the
appellate order and the order of recovery.
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

5. Writ petition is allowed without
imposing any cost.

6. However, this order will not be
construed
as
reinstatement
of
the
petitioner. It is open for the respondent
authority to initiate proceeding or to issue
appropriate notice by saying as to why the
enquiry will be dispensed with. It is open
to the respondents to complete the enquiry
proceeding in accordance with law as
early as possible preferably within a
period of one month from the date of
communication of this order.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 500 of 2007

Picket Inter College Khatauli, District
Muzaffar Nagar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar
Nagar and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.S. Chahar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vikrant Pandey
Sri S.K. Awasthi
C.S.C.

U.P. Inter Mediate Education Act 192116 D (4)-Appointment of authorized
Controller-in minority institution-clear
statutory
prohibit
fact
of
minority
institution
not
denied
in
counter
affidavit-held-unsustainable.

Held: Para 7

The only question which survives for
determination is as to whether the
Authorized Controller could have been
appointed or not. The aforesaid legal
question stands squarely answered in
favour of the petitioner and Section
16D(14)
of
the
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 recites clearly that
the provisions of supersession do not
apply in respect of minority institutions.
The aforesaid statutory bar therefore
prohibits
the
respondents
from
appointing an Authorized Controller.
Case law discussed:
1993 ALL.L.J. 318

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

List has been revised.

1. Shri N.S. Chahar, learned counsel
for the petitioner has advanced his
submissions on behalf of the petitioner
and the learned standing counsel for the
respondent nos. 1 to 4. In spite of an
impleadment application having been
filed and allowed by this Court on
28.03.2008, the respondent no. 5-Smt.
Jaswanti Singh remains unrepresented.
None has appeared on her behalf to assist
the Court nor any counter affidavit has
been filed.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the State, wherein the fact
that
the
institution
is
a
minority
institution, has not been denied The
counter affidavit does not disclose the
source of power exercised on the basis
whereof
the
committee
has
been
superseded.

3. The writ petition has been filed
challenging
the
order
dated
16th
December, 2006, whereby the Regional
Director of Education Saharanpur, Region
Saharanpur has appointed an Authorized