# Ram Pal Singh v. Director of Agriculture U.P.and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 197
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-03
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pal-singh-v-director-of-agriculture-u-p-and-others-42095
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226punishment of dismissal-without discussion
of charges and evidence-even during course
of enquiry-copy of certain documents not
given-disciplinary authority on basis of
proposed punishment as suggested by
enquiry officer-imposed major punishmentAppellate Authority also not addressed on
merit
in
absence
reasons-held-enquiry
officer-no
jurisdiction
to
recommend
punishment-considering
long
period
of
mental suffering and growing age of 71
year-instead
of
remanding
for
fresh
consideration on principle of "No Work No
Pay"-petitioner will not get any amount of
salary during period of non working but
entitled for every consequential post retrial
benefits.

Held: Para 19

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned
orders are set aside. However, keeping in
view the principle of no work no pay, the
petitioner is not entitled for any salary
for the intervening period but this period
shall not be treated as break in service
but the same shall be treated as
continuation
of
service
for
other
consequential and post retiral benefits.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 8 SCC 236; (1009) 1 SCC (L&S) 806;
1971 (1) AIIER 1148; 1974 (4) IRC 120
(NIRC); (2001) 29 LCD 2265

## Text

1 All] Ram Pal Singh V. Director of Agriculture U.P.and others

197
necessary after inviting fresh report from
the police authorities. Let necessary
exercise be done within a period of four
months from the date of service of
certified copy of the present order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

Service Single No. - 6204 of 1991

Ram Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Director of Agriculture U.P.and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C. Bajpai
Sri R.B. Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226punishment of dismissal-without discussion
of charges and evidence-even during course
of enquiry-copy of certain documents not
given-disciplinary authority on basis of
proposed punishment as suggested by
enquiry officer-imposed major punishmentAppellate Authority also not addressed on
merit
in
absence
reasons-held-enquiry
officer-no
jurisdiction
to
recommend
punishment-considering
long
period
of
mental suffering and growing age of 71
year-instead
of
remanding
for
fresh
consideration on principle of "No Work No
Pay"-petitioner will not get any amount of
salary during period of non working but
entitled for every consequential post retrial
benefits.

Held: Para 19

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned
orders are set aside. However, keeping in
view the principle of no work no pay, the
petitioner is not entitled for any salary
for the intervening period but this period
shall not be treated as break in service
but the same shall be treated as
continuation
of
service
for
other
consequential and post retiral benefits.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 8 SCC 236; (1009) 1 SCC (L&S) 806;
1971 (1) AIIER 1148; 1974 (4) IRC 120
(NIRC); (2001) 29 LCD 2265

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. )

1. Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned
counsel for petitioner and Sri V.S.
Tripathi, learned State counsel and
perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case
are that petitioner was initially appointed
in the Agriculture Department of the State
of Uttar Pradesh on Grade III post by
order
dated
15.06.1964
passed
by
Director of Agriculture and posted as
Assistant
Agriculture
Inspector
at
Government Agriculture Seed Store,
Manglaur, Saharanpur.

3. By an order dated 31.01.1978
(Anneuxre No. 4), he was placed under
suspension. On 19.05.1978 (Anneuxre
No. 5) a chargesheet has been issued to
the petitioner, after receiving same , as
per the version of the petitioner, he
demanded certain documents but the same
has not been supplied to him, as such
being no other alternative left before him,
submitted
his
reply
on
05.09.1978
(Anneuxre No. 6) inter alia denying
charges leveled against him and in his
reply he stated that Sri Suresh Chand
Sharma
was
responsible
for
the
embezzlement of DAP fertilizer who had
received the fertilizer stock in question
thereafter inquiry was conducted by
Inquiry Officer who submitted the inquiry
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

report to the punishing authority/Director
of Agriculture/O.P. No. 1.

4. On 03.11.1980 (Annexure No. 2)
the punishing authority/O.P. No. 1 passed
the impugned punishment order thereby
dismissing the petitioner's services and
three other charges were also leveled
against him including the recovery of a
sum of Rs. 40,017.24 from the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order
of punishment the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the appellate authority.
Lastly by a letter/order dated 16th March,
1991 (Anneuxre No. 1), it was informed
that the appellate authority has rejected
the
petitioner's
appeal
after
due
consideration. Hence, present writ petition
has been filed challenging the impugned
orders dated 16.03.1991 (Anneuxre No.1)
and 03.11.1980 (Anneuxre No. 2).

6. Sri Manish Mishra, learned
counsel for petitioner in brief has assailed
the impugned orders firstly on the ground
that in the present case the inquiry officer
after conducting the inquiry proceedings,
in his inquiry report proposed the
punishment which is to be awarded to the
petitioner. The said action on his part is
contrary to law as he has got no authority
whatsoever to propose punishment to be
given to the petitioner. In support of his
argument, he placed reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court
given in the case of State of Uttaranchal
and others Vs. Kharak Singh (2008) 8
SCC 236.

7. Sri Manish Mishra, learned
counsel for petitioner further submits that
the impugned order dated 03.11.1980
(Anneuxre No. 2) passed by O.P. No. 1 is
a non-speaking order and no reason
whatsoever has been assigned in the said
order as after refering the charges in
impugned order, the punishing authority
in the operative portion stated that he
agreed with the inquiry report submitted
by the Inquiry Officer and accordingly the
punishment as suggested therein has been
awarded. Hence, the said impugned order
is a non-speaking order, violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India as
well as principles of natural justice.

8. Lastly it is argued by Sri Manish
Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner that
aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.1980
(Anneuxre No. 2) passed by O.P. No. 1,
the
petitioner
filed
an
appeal
on
20.02.1981 and after lapse of more than
10 years, it was communicated to him by
an order dated 16.03.1991 ((Annexure
No. 1) that the appellate authority after
considering his case, has rejected the
appeal. However, no order of rejection of
the appeal has been given to him. The
said action on the part of appellate
authority is contrary to law as well as
principles of natural justice. In support of
his argument he has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Chairman,
Disciplinary
Authority,
Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin
Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and
others (1009) 1 SCC (L&S) 806.

9. Accordingly, Sri Manish Mishra,
learned counsel for petitioner submits that
the impugned orders dated 16.03.1991
and 03.11.1980 are liable to be set aside
and writ petition may be allowed.

10. Sri V.S. Tripathi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the
basis of pleadings on record submits that
in
the
present
case
taking
into
consideration the irregularities committed
1 All] Ram Pal Singh V. Director of Agriculture U.P.and others

199
by the petitioner he has been placed under
suspension and thereafter a chargesheet
has been served on him, 16 charges were
leveled
and
after
providing
due
opportunity to him the Inquiry Officer has
conducted
inquiry
proceedings
in
accordance with law and submitted the
inquiry report to the punishing authority
who after considering the same had
passed the punishment order dated
03.11.1980 awarding the order of thereby
dismissal from service against which the
petitioner's appeal has been rejected.

11. It is further submitted by Sri
V.S. Tripathi, learned State counsel that at
the relevant point of time there is no bar
on the part of the inquiry officer to
recommend the punishment to be awarded
to a delinquent employee, as such the
action on the part of inquiry Officer
thereby recommending the proposed
punishment to be awarded to the
petitioner after conducting the inquiry
proceedings is neither illegality nor
infirmity on his part which renders the
impugned order of dismissal dated
03.11.1980, illegal, hence present writ
petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit
and liable to be dismissed.

12. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

13. In view of the factual matrix of
the present case, the first point which is to
be adjudicated is whether the action on
the part of Inquiry Officer to recommend
the punishment after holding the inquiry
proceedings is a valid action on his part or
not. The answer to this question finds
place in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of
Uttaranchal and others Vs. Kharak
Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236, held as under:-

"In regard to the question whether
an enquiry officer can indicate the
proposed punishment in his report, this
Court, in a series of decisions has pointed
out that it is for the punishing/disciplinary
authority
to
impose
appropriate
punishment and enquiry officer has no
role in awarding punishment. It is useful
to refer to the decision of this Court in
A.N.D'Silva vs. Union of India, AIR 1962
SC 130wherein it was held: (AIR 1134
para 6)

"In the communication addressed by
the Enquiry Officer the punishment
proposed to be imposed upon the
appellant if he was found guilty of the
charges could not properly be set out. The
question of imposing punishment can only
arise after enquiry is made and the report
of the Enquiry Officer is received. It is for
the punishing authority to propose the
punishment and not for the enquiring
authority."

14. Further from the perusal of the
impugned
order
dated
03.11.1980
(Anneuxre No. 2) passed by Director of
Agriculture/O.P. NO. 2 it is not disputed
that rather admitted by the learned State
counsel that the same is non-speaking
order and no reason whatsoever has been
assigned by the O.P. No. 1 while passing
the said order.

15. It is well settled law that an
order passed by an authority should be a
reasoned one and the objection taken by a
person should be dealt with because
reasons are like a live wire which
connects the mind of the decision making
authority and the decision given by him
and if this wire/link is broken i.e. to say
no reasons are given in the impugned
order then it will not be possible to know
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

as what was going in the mind of the
decision making authority on the basis of
which he has come to the conclusion and
passed the impugned order.

16. In Breen Vs. Amalgamated
Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1)
AIIER 1148, it was held that the giving
of reasons is one of the fundamentals of
good
administration.
In
Alexander
Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress,
reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it
was observed that "failure to give reasons
amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are
live links between the mind of the
decision taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion
arrived at".

17. Reasons substitute subjectivity
by objectivity. The emphasis on recording
reasons is that if the decision reveals the
'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be
its silence, render it virtually impossible
for the Courts to perform their appellate
function or exercise the power of judicial
review in adjudging the validity of the
decision.
Right
to
reason
is
an
indispensable part of a sound judicial
system, reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the later
before Court. Another rationale is that the
affected party can know why the decision
has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirements of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made. In other
worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable
face
of
the
sphinx'
is
ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance." So, the impugned
orders dated 03.11.1980 (Anneuxre No. 2)
is contrary to law, liable to be set aside.

18. In the present case the petitioner
being aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 03.11.1980 (Anneuxre No. 2) filed
a statutory appeal before the appellate
authority on 20.02.1981 and after lapse of
more than a decade only it was informed
to him by order dated 16.03.1991
(Anneuxre No. 1) that the appellate
authority has rejected the petitioner's
appeal after due consideration. In view of
the said fact, I am of the considered
opinion that the said action on the part of
the appellate authority thereby not giving
the reasons on which basis the appeal
filed by the petitioner has been rejected is
an action which is arbitrary in nature,
thus, violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India because every
person/employee has a right under law to
know reason on the basis which his case
has been rejected,Hon'ble the Apex Court
in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary
Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya
Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan
Varshney and others (1009) 1 SCC
(L&S) 806,

In
our
opinion,
an
order
of
affirmation need not contain as elaborate
reasons as an order of reversal, but that
does not mean that the order of
affirmation need not contain any reasons
whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in
Prabhu Dayal Grover's case(supra) has
itself stated that the appellate order
should disclose application of mind.
Whether there was an application of mind
or not can only be disclosed by some
reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the
order of the appellate authority. Hence,
we cannot accept the proposition that an
order of affirmation need not contain any
reasons at all. That order must contain
some reasons, at least in brief, so that one
can know whether the appellate authority
has applied its mind while affirming the
order of the disciplinary authority. The
1 All] Chandra Bali V. Addl. Commissioner and others

201
view we are taking was also taken by this
Court in Divisional Forest Officer vs.
Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253
(vide para 19), and in Madhya Pradesh
Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR
1966 SC 671, siemens Engineering &
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Union of
India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 (vide para 6),
etc. Thus, the impugned order dated
03.11.1980 (Annexure No. 2) as well as
the
appellate
order
by
which
the
petitioner's appeal has been rejected being
contrary to principles of natural justice are
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the
question arises for consideration before
this Court is to the effect that if the order
in questions are set aside, on technical
ground fact stated hereinabove whether
the matter is to be remanded back to the
competent authority to take a fresh
decision or not. In this regard, after
considering
the
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances of the present case and
taking
into
consideration
that
the
petitioner is a 71 years old person and he
has suffered great mental agony during
the intervening period due to impugned
orders which have been passed against
him which are against the principles of
natural justice, so keeping in view the law
as laid down by this Court in the case of
Man Mohan Singh Jaggi Vs. Food
Corporation of India and others (2001)
29 LCD 2265, in the interest of justice I
do not feel appropriate to remand the
matter again to the competent authority
for reconsideration.

19. For the foregoing reasons, the
impugned orders are set aside. However,
keeping in view the principle of no work
no pay, the petitioner is not entitled for
any salary for the intervening period but
this period shall not be treated as break in
service but the same shall be treated as
continuation
of
service
for
other
consequential and post retiral benefits.

20. With the above observations, the
writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of 2012

Chandra Bali

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India , Article 226/227Direction for speedy Trail and quick
disposal of Appeal-every day court facing
similar grievance-speedy Trails meansreasonable expeditious Trail-court issued
general Mandamus to all Revenue Court
to follow the Time Table-and to decide
the case accordingly.

Held: Para 12 and 13

It may be noted that non disposal of the
cases within a time bound period is
unnecessarily burdening this Court with
writ
petitions
seeking directions
as
above. Such writ petitions, can be
avoided and much time of this Court can
be saved, if the revenue courts adhere to
a particular time schedule for disposal of
all cases.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion
that not only land acquisition cases or
other cases for which time period for
disposal has been prescribed, all cases