# Prahlad v. Suraj Pal and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 822
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-02
- **Bench:** Satya Poot Mehrotra, Mahendra Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prahlad-v-suraj-pal-and-others-42169
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

High Court Rules-Chapter VIII rule 5Special Appeal arises out from order
passed
by
Single
Judge-quashing
cancellation of Fair Price Shop and the
appellate order-held-Special Appeal not
maintainable.

Held: Para 10 and 11

In view of the aforesaid facts, it is
evident that the Full Bench Decision in
Sheet Gupta case (supra) is applicable to
the present Special Appeal, and the
present
Special
Appeal
is
not
maintainable.
2 All] Prahlad V. Suraj Pal and others
823
The present Special Appeal is, therefore,
liable
to
be
dismissed
as
not
maintainable,
and
the
same
is
accordingly
dismissed
as
not
maintainable.
Case law discussed:
2010 (1) ADJ 1 (F.B.); (2011) 2 SCC 212

## Text

822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
the submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner. The Enquiry
Officer instead of recording examination in
chief of witnesses and leaving the crossexamination
to
the
delinquent
employee/petitioner, himself completed the
examination of witnesses in questionanswer form. Thus, the petitioner could not
get opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Thus, the assertion of the petitioner that
disciplinary proceedings suffer from legal
infirmities, can easily be accepted.

12. Taking the holistic view of the
matter, we have no hesitation in saying that
the inquiry has been conducted in utter
disregard to the principles of natural justice.
Since the impugned order has been passed
on the basis of the inquiry report, which
suffers from procedural illegality and
violative of principles of natural justice, the
order of punishment vitiates. The Appellate
Authority has also not dealt with the pleas
raised by the petitioner but rejected the
appeal in a cursory manner. The Appellate
Authority ought to have applied its
independent mind and should have recorded
reasons for rejecting the pleas/submissions
raised by the petitioner in his appeal.

13. In the result, the impugned order
of dismissal dated 3.8.2001 and the
appellate order dated 13.2.2002 passed by
the respondents nos. 3 and 2 are hereby
quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated
in service forthwith and will be entitled for
all consequential benefits. In the event, if
the petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation, he shall be entitled for all
post-retiral benefits treating him to be in
service till the date of attaining the age of
superannuation and all admissible dues shall
be paid to him in a maximum period of four
months. As the punishment order was
passed way back in 2001 and since the
petitioner has undergone a series of
harassments on account of the departmental
inquiry, we are not inclined to give any
liberty to the department for initiating fresh
inquiry as it would amount to further
harassment of the petitioner, who either
would
have
attained
the
age
of
superannuation or would be at the fag end
of his service.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHENDRA DAYAL, J.

Special Appeal No. - 1089 of 2009

Prahlad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Suraj Pal & Others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.A. Abbasi
Sri Hemant Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri V.P.S. Kashyap

High Court Rules-Chapter VIII rule 5Special Appeal arises out from order
passed
by
Single
Judge-quashing
cancellation of Fair Price Shop and the
appellate order-held-Special Appeal not
maintainable.

Held: Para 10 and 11

In view of the aforesaid facts, it is
evident that the Full Bench Decision in
Sheet Gupta case (supra) is applicable to
the present Special Appeal, and the
present
Special
Appeal
is
not
maintainable.
2 All] Prahlad V. Suraj Pal and others
823
The present Special Appeal is, therefore,
liable
to
be
dismissed
as
not
maintainable,
and
the
same
is
accordingly
dismissed
as
not
maintainable.
Case law discussed:
2010 (1) ADJ 1 (F.B.); (2011) 2 SCC 212

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. It appears that the licence of the
petitioner -respondent no.1 in respect of
the Fair-Price Shop was cancelled by the
order dated 6.10.1998 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Patiyali, Etah. The
petitioner -respondent no.1 , thereupon,
filed an Appeal before the Divisional
Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra.

2. By the order dated 10.8.2005, the
said Divisional Commissioner dismissed
the said Appeal . The petitionerrespondent no. 1 filed a Writ Petition
being Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 74096
of 2005 before this Court.

3. By the Judgment and Order dated
20.3.2009, the Learned Single Judge
allowed the said Writ Petition, and
quashed the said order dated 6.10.1998
and the said order dated 10.8.2005. The
appellant, who was respondent no. 5 in
the said Writ Petition, thereupon filed the
present Special Appeal against the said
Judgment and Order dated 20.3.2009
passed by the Learned Single Judge.

4. The case has been taken -up in
the revised cause-list. None is present for
the appellant.

5. Learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3
and 4 has raised a Preliminary Objection
that the present Special Appeal filed by
the appellant under Chapter VIII, Rule 5
of the Rules of the Court is not
maintainable in view of the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Sheet Gupta Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2010(1) ADJ 1
(F.B.).

6. In Sheet Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2010(1) ADJ 1 (F.B.), the
following question was referred for
decision by a Larger Bench:

"Whether a special appeal under the
provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of
the Rules of the Court lies in a case
where the judgment has been given by a
learned single Judge in a writ petition
directed against an order passed in an
appeal under paragraph 28 of the U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution
Order, 2004?"

7. A Full Bench of this Court
answered the question as under:

" A special appeal would not lie
under the provisions of Rule 5 of the
Chapter VIII of the Rules where the
judgment has been given by a learned
single Judge in a writ petition directed
against an order passed in an appeal
under paragraph 28 of the Distribution
Order,2004."

8. The Supreme Court has taken
similar view in the case of State of U.P.
& others Vs. Madhav Prasad Sharma,
(2011) 2 SCC 212.

9. As noted above, the present
Special Appeal has been filed under Rule
5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the
Court against the judgment and order
dated 20.3.2009 passed by the learned
Single Judge whereby , the learned
Single Judge quashed the order dated
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
6.10.1998 whereby the licence of the
petitioner -respondent no. 1 in respect of
the Fair -Price Shop was cancelled and
the order dated 10.8.2005 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner dismissing the
Appeal filed by the appellant.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, it
is evident that the Full Bench Decision in
Sheet Gupta case (supra) is applicable
to the present Special Appeal, and the
present
Special
Appeal
is
not
maintainable.

11. The present Special Appeal is,
therefore, liable to be dismissed as not
maintainable,
and
the
same
is
accordingly
dismissed
as
not
maintainable.

12. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be
no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2076 of 1998

State of U.P. Thrugh Executive Engineer,
and Ors

 ...Petitioners
Versus
P.O., Industrial Tribunal (V) Meerut and
anr

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Mehta

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
Sri H.C. Dwivedi
Sri P.K. Singhal
Sri P.K. Srivastava
Sri Rajiv Gupta
Sri Shyam Narain
Sri Gopal narain
Sri Sudhanshu Narain

Constitution of India, Article 226-Labor
Court
Award-in
favor
of
workmanburden of proof regarding continuous
working of 240 days-wrongly shifted
upon employer-tribunal decided on most
cursory and illegal manner-award not
sustainable.

Held: Para 6

The issues no. 1 and 3 are such which
were the responsibility of the workman
to
prove.
The
nature
of
employment/appointment
of
the
workman was to be proved by him as
also he has to prove that he has worked
for 240 days and more in the preceding
12 months. There is nothing in the award
to show that except mere assumption on
the part of Tribunal, workman, in any
manner discharged the above burden. It
is true that the record must be available
with the employer but if the workman
intended to rely upon certain document
which were in the possession of the
employer, he could have summoned the
same but there is nothing evident from
the record that any such attempt was
made by the workman and the employer
having failed to produced the document,
the Tribunal has drawn an adverse
inference
thereagainst.
In
fact
the
Tribunal has placed onus in a reverse
manner
on
the
employer
and
has
answered the issues by observing that
the
employer
failed
to
prove
the
pleadings of the employer and very
categorically and specific and in order to
dislodge thereto, it was incumbent upon
the workman to adduce evidence and
prove his case otherwise he was bound
to suffer.
Case law discussed:
JT 2005 (3) SC 248; 2002 (3) SCC 25; 2004
(8) SCC 195; 2006 (1) SCC 106; 2008 (3) SCC
474; 2007 (3) SCALE 436; 2010 (12) SCALE
536