# Ravi Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 569
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-31
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 15848 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-shanker-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47448
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
UP
Government
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
Punishment - Dismissal from service -
Departmental enquiry - Opportunity of
hearing - Non-speaking order - Past
conduct of the delinquent employee of
habitual absentism, unauthorized leave,
indisciplined
behaviour
with
superior
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
officers,
its
relevancy
-
Ground
of
disproportionate
punishment
taken
-
Held, before passing the impugned order
of dismissal the inquiry officer must have
conducted
the
departmental
inquiry
strictly in accordance of law and the
disciplinary authority must have passed
the order of dismissal after affording
sufficient opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner - Further held, the impugned
order cannot be said as non-speaking
order if the reply so given by the
petitioner has been considered properly.
Considering the past conduct of the
petitioner by the inquiry officer may not
be said to be any illegality - High Court
did
not
found
punishment
order
of
dismissal disproportionate. (Para 25 and
29)
B. Service Jurisprudence - Quantum of
Punishment - Wednesbury test - Meaning
and Scope - Point is to be seen as to
whether the decision was illegal or
suffered from procedural improprieties or
was one which no sensible decision maker
could, on material before him and with
framework
of
law
have
arrived
at
...whether the decision was absurd or
perverse. The Court would not, however,
go into the gravity of choice made by the
authority nor could the Court substitute
its decision - As a matter of fact the Court
can only test the decision making process
whether adopted correctly or not but not
the decision - Held, the severe most
punishment of the service jurisprudence
i.e. dismissal which was awarded to the
petitioner does not shock the conscience
of the Court. (Para 27 and 29)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

9 All Ravi Shanker Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
569

369. An establishment, the duties
of which are not continuous but are limited
to certain fixed periods in each year, is not
a temporary establishment. Service in such
an establishment, including the period
during which the establishment is not
employed qualifies but the concession of
counting as service the period during while
the establishment is not employed does not
apply to an officer who was not on actual
duty
when
the
establishment
was
discharged, after completion of its work, or
to an officer who was not on actual duty on
the first day on which the establishment
was again re-employed."

Therefore, the qualifying service, as
defined in sub-rule (8) of Rule 3, includes
the service, which qualifies for pension in
accordance with the provisions of Section
368 of Civil Services Regulation. The
petitioner does not fall in any of the
exceptions inasmuch as the period of his
temporary service was not in a nonpensionable establishment after he was
regularized in the State Government.

42. In the light of the aforesaid
provisions of law, it is clear that the
petitioner
has
rendered
qualifying
pensionery service with effect from the
date of his initial joining in the department
in question, so the same shall be treated as
service
qualifying
for
pension
and
pensionery benefits.

43. In view of what has been
considered
above,
the
writ
petition
succeeds and is hereby allowed.

44. A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued
quashing
the
orders
dated
31.03.2021 passed by the Joint Director
Pension, Kanpur Mandal Kanpur, the order
dated 15.02.2021 issued by the Special
Secretary U.P. and the order dated
05.03.2021
issued
by
the
Director,
Employees
State
Insurance
Scheme,
Labour
and
Medical
Services,
Uttar
Pradesh, which are contained as Annexure
Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively to the writ
petition. A writ in the nature of mandamus
is also issued commanding the opposite
parties to release the pension of the
petitioner forthwith, preferably within a
period of one month from the date of
production of a certified/ computerized
copy of this order, failing which, the
petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the
rate of 6% per annum.

45. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A569
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 15848 of 2020

Ravi Shanker Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shreesh Kumar Mishra Atal, Sharad Pathak,
Surendra Prasad Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pankaj Patel

A.
Service
Law
-
UP
Government
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
Punishment - Dismissal from service -
Departmental enquiry - Opportunity of
hearing - Non-speaking order - Past
conduct of the delinquent employee of
habitual absentism, unauthorized leave,
indisciplined
behaviour
with
superior
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
officers,
its
relevancy
-
Ground
of
disproportionate
punishment
taken
-
Held, before passing the impugned order
of dismissal the inquiry officer must have
conducted
the
departmental
inquiry
strictly in accordance of law and the
disciplinary authority must have passed
the order of dismissal after affording
sufficient opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner - Further held, the impugned
order cannot be said as non-speaking
order if the reply so given by the
petitioner has been considered properly.
Considering the past conduct of the
petitioner by the inquiry officer may not
be said to be any illegality - High Court
did
not
found
punishment
order
of
dismissal disproportionate. (Para 25 and
29)
B. Service Jurisprudence - Quantum of
Punishment - Wednesbury test - Meaning
and Scope - Point is to be seen as to
whether the decision was illegal or
suffered from procedural improprieties or
was one which no sensible decision maker
could, on material before him and with
framework
of
law
have
arrived
at
...whether the decision was absurd or
perverse. The Court would not, however,
go into the gravity of choice made by the
authority nor could the Court substitute
its decision - As a matter of fact the Court
can only test the decision making process
whether adopted correctly or not but not
the decision - Held, the severe most
punishment of the service jurisprudence
i.e. dismissal which was awarded to the
petitioner does not shock the conscience
of the Court. (Para 27 and 29)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Om Prakash Vs St. of Pun. & ors. (2011) 14
SCC 682
2. St. of M.P. Vs Harihar Gopal; 1969 SLR 274
(SC)
3. Maan Singh Vs U.O.I. (2003) 3 SCC 464
4. Sri Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs Commissioner of
Police, Delhi & ors. (2004) 4 SCC 560
5. Ram Kishan Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1995) 6 SCC
157
6. Rama Kant Misra Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (1982)
3 SCC 346
7. Collector Singh Vs L.M.L. Ltd. Kanpur; (2015)
2 SCC 410
8. S.K. Giri Vs Home Secretary, Ministry of
Home; 1995 Supp (3) SCC 519
9. Ved Prakash Gupta Vs Delton Cable India (P)
Ltd.; (1984) 2 SCC 569
10. Surendra Prasad Shukla Vs St. of Jharkhand
& ors. (2011) 8 SCC 536
11. Girish Bhushan Goyal Vs B.H.E.L. & anr.
(2014) 1 SCC 82
12. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors.Vs Saroj Kumar
Sinha; (2010) 2 SCC 772
13. S.N. Mukherjee Vs U.O.I. (1990) 4 SCC 594
14. State of Mysore Vs K. Manche Gowda;
(1964) 4 SCR 540
15. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs U.O.I. (1995) 6 SCC 749
16. U.O.I.Vs G. Ganayutham; (1997) 7 SCC 463
17. U.O.I. Vs Mohd. Ibrahim; (2004) 10 SCC 87
18. St. of U.P. Vs Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava;
(2006) 3 SCC 276
19.
North-Eastern
Karnatak
Roadways
Corporation Vs Ashappa; (2006) 5 SCC 137
20. Man Singh Vs St. of Har. (2008) 12 SCC 331
21. Wednesbury Test [ (1948) 1 KB 223
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 to 5.

By means of this petition the
petitioner has prayed following relief:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
9 All Ravi Shanker Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
571
impugned
dismissal
order
dated
29.07.2020, passed by opposite party
number 3, contained as Annexure No. I to
the writ petition; and pay the petitioner
arrears of salary with interest and also pay
other consequential dues.

2. The order under challenge is order
dated 29.7.2020 passed by the opposite
party no. 3 i.e. The Chief Executive Officer
which is contained as Annexure no. 1 to the
writ petition whereby the petitioner (since
deceased) has been dismissed from service.

It is to be noted here that the main
petitioner died on 1.4.2021, during the
pendency of this writ petition, therefore, his
legal heirs filed substitution application
which
was
allowed
by
this
Court,
accordingly the family members of the
petitioner i.e. Lata Sharma, wife, Bhavna
Sharma, daughter, Ashawani Sharma, Son,
Aakash Sharma, son of Late Ravi Shankar
Sharma have been substituted as petitioner
nos. 1 to 4.

3. The sole contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
punishment order of dismissal has been
passed without conducting proper inquiry,
the impugned order is non-speaking and
did not record reasons upon the reply given
by the petitioner, past conduct of the
petitioner has been taken into consideration
while passing the impugned order and the
impugned
punishment
order
is
disproportionate punishment which does
not commensurate with the gravity of the
misconduct.

4. Therefore, the question for
consideration before this Court is that if the
employee does not cooperate with the
departmental proceedings despite ample
opportunities having been provided as to
whether the punishment order could have
been
passed
conducting
departmental
enquiry as per law or not. While
considering this question this has to be seen
as to whether the past conduct of the
delinquent employee may be taken into
consideration that he had committed same
type of misconduct on earlier occasions.
Besides, the quantum of the punishment
can be evaluated by the High Court.

5. Brief facts of the case, as per
learned counsel for the parties, are that the
petitioner was placed under suspension in
contemplation of departmental inquiry by
the Chief Executive Officer / Appointing
Authority vide order dated 20.9.2018
(Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition). One
Deputy
Chief
Executive
Officer,
Gorakhpur,
Circle
Gorakhpur
was
appointed inquiry officer in the matter.

6. After due approval of the chargesheet dated 1.01.2019 the same has been
served upon the petitioner along with relied
upon documents for seeking his defense
reply. The petitioner submitted his defense
reply on 14.1.2019.

7. Thereafter, in conformity of U.P.
Government (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999, the inquiry officer issued a letter dated
16.3.2019 fixing the matter for 18.3.2019
asking the petitioner to appear on the said
date and place his defense, if any. The
inquiry officer has also afforded an
opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner fixing date time and place to
conclude the inquiry but the petitioner after
appearing before the inquiry officer has
submitted that he has already filed his
defense reply so he has nothing to say more.

8. The inquiry officer has recorded
the findings in the inquiry report that the
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charges
of
unauthorized
absence,
undisciplined attitude, violation of the
employees conduct rules and negligent
behaviour have been found proved. The
inquiry officer has also noted that on earlier
occasions the petitioner remained absent
unauthorizedly
and
his
attitude
and
behaviour with the superiors was absolutely
unbecoming of a government servant.

9. As per the learned counsel for the
petitioner only one date i.e. 18.3.2019 was
fixed for personal hearing / oral inquiry,
however, no oral inquiry took place in
terms of the relevant Rules, 1999 and the
inquiry was concluded only taking into
account the defense reply of the petitioner.
The learned counsel has not disputed one
fact that on 18.3.2019 the petitioner had
submitted
his
detailed
representation
without requesting that he wished to file
any defense or witness or material or
wished to cross-examine any person or
material. To the contrary he had given
impression to the inquiry officer on
18.3.2019 that except his defense reply
dated 14.1.2019 to the charge-sheet dated
1.11.2019 he has nothing to say.

10. The inquiry officer submitted the
inquriy report dated 19.3.2019 before the
disciplinary authority enclosing therewith
the relevant evidences / material considered
by the inquiry officer.

11. The Chief Executive Officer /
Appointing Authority issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner on 22.5.2019
(Annexure no. 11 to the writ petition)
enclosing the inquiry report seeking reply
from the petitioner on or before 30.5.2019.

12. The petitioner has not submitted
his explanation on or before 30.5.2019 but
submitted on 12.6.2019 (Annexure no. 12
to the writ petition). Thereafter, the
disciplinary authority has fixed the date on
16.7.2019 for personal hearing of the
petitioner so that the petitioner could
submit his defense, if any.

13. Again a letter was issued to the
petitioner on 27.8.2019 seeking explanation
and in compliance of the aforesaid letter
dated 27.8.2019 the petitioner filed a
representation dated 16.9.2019 pleading his
bona fide but the disciplinary authority did
not find such representation satisfactory,
therefore, the disciplinary authority issued
another letter dated 16.10.2019 to the
petitioner fixing the next date for personal
hearing on 22.10.2019. The petitioner again
submitted his explanation on 22.10.2019
but the same was not found satisfactory as
the substantial pleadings of bona fide of the
petitioner were missing.

14. As an abundant precaution and in
conformity with the rules of natural justice
the disciplinary authority again issued a
letter dated 26.11.2019 fixing another date
i.e. 4.12.2019 for personal hearing hearing
of the petitioner. Again on 3.3.2020 the
explanation of the petitioner has been
sought apprising him that in case of not
submitting proper reply / explanation, the
major penalty may likely to be imposed
against the petitioner. Considering the
pandemic
situation
of
Covid-19
the
authority has issued another notice dated
6.5.2020 (Annexure no. 16) calling upon
the explanation along with evidences, if
any which the petitioner wishes to produce.
The petitioner submitted his reply on
27.5.2020 in a sheer mechanical manner
without providing any relevant material
corroborating his bona fide.

15. Lastly, on 2.7.2020 a letter was
issued by the disciplinary officer to the
9 All Ravi Shanker Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
573
petitioner fixing the final date for personal
hearing on 6.7.2020 and the said date was
extended
on
7.7.2020.
However,
on
8.7.2020 the petitioner submitted a written
reply but like his earlier explanations he
could not provide any material or evidence
enabling him not guilty. However, as a
matter of fact the material / evidence
available with the department the petitioner
was guilty of the charges. Therefore,
considering the entire material on record
and after providing opportunity of personal
hearing as maintained above the impugned
order dated 29.7.2020 has been passed
dismissing the petitioner from service.

16. As per learned counsel for the
petitioner no proper departmental inquiry
was conducted against the petitioner and no
cogent reasons have been recorded by the
disciplinary authority while awarding the
punishment of dismissal. The past conduct
of the petitioner has been taken into
consideration whereas the past conduct
should have not been considered and the
impugned punishment is disproportionate
inasmuch as even if on the charge of
habitual,
unauthorized
and
deliberate
absence the most severe punishment of
service jurisprudence i.e. dismissal should
not have been provided to the petitioner.

17. On the other hand Sri Pankaj
Patel, learned counsel for the opposite
parties no. 2 to 5 has submitted that in the
charge-sheet there was specific charge
against the petitioner that he was habitual
absentee and on earlier occasions he
proceeded on unauthorized leave. Not only
the above after having been confronted on
such misconduct he behaved with the
superior authorities in gross in-disciplined
manner and his misconduct as such is
misdemeanor / misdeed, delinquency, the
improper behaviour and dereliction from
duty, therefore, the punishment of dismissal
has been rightly awarded. Hence, the
present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

18. Sri Pankaj Patel has drawn
attention of this Court towards the dictum
of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Om Prakash
vs. State of Punjab and others reported in
(2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 682 by
submitting that the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that charge of repeated absentism or
habitual absentism without leave would be
sufficient to provide major punishment of
dismissal to the employee. The delinquent
was himself fully conscious and aware of
his absence from the duty and the said
charge was mentioned in the charge-sheet,
therefore, the said employee does not
deserve any sympathy. In re: Om Prakash
(supra) the Apex Court has considered the
earlier dictum of Apex Court i.e. State of
M.P. vs. Harihar Gopal, 1969 SLR 274
(SC) and Maan Singh vs. Union of India,
(2003) 3 SCC 464 holding that the habitual
absentee without leave does not deserve
any sympathy from the Court.

19. Sri Patel, learned counsel has also
submitted that in view of the facts and
circumstances and misconduct of the
petitioner no other punishment except the
punishment of dismissal could have been
provided,
therefore,
the
quantum
of
punishment may not be tested or examined
in the present case.

20. However, Sri Sharad Pathak,
learned counsel for the petitioner while
pressing
his
ground
regarding
proportionality of the punishment and
defective departmental enquiry has cited
various dictums of the Apex Court i.e. Sri
Bhagwan Lal Arya vs. Commissioner of
Police, Delhi & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 560,
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ram Kishan vs. Union of India & Ors.
(1995) 6 SCC 157, Rama Kant Misra vs.
State of U.P. and others (1982) 3 SCC
346, Collector Singh vs. L.M.L. Ltd.
Kanpur (2015) 2 SCC 410, S.K. Giri vs.
Home Secretary, Ministry of Home 1995
Supp (3) SCC 519, Ved Prakash Gupta vs.
Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (1984) 2 SCC
569, Surendra Prasad Shukla vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 536,
Girish Bhushan Goyal vs. B.H.E.L. &
Anr. (2014) 1 SCC 82, State of Uttar
Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar
Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772, S.N. Mukherjee
vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 and
State of Mysore vs. K. Manche Gowda
(1964) 4 SCR 540.

21. In all the aforesaid judgments the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that on account
of the charge of unauthorized absence the
incumbent should have not been provided the
major punishment i.e. dismissal.

22. So as to press his another ground
that the impugned punishment order has been
issued
without
conducting
the
proper
disciplinary inquiry Sri Pathak has placed
reliance on the judgment of State of U.P. &
Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra).

23. Pressing his another ground that the
explanation of the petitioner was not
considered properly, Sri Pathak has placed
reliance in re: S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of
India (supra).

24. Lastly pressing his ground that the
past conduct of an employee should not be
taken into account Sri Pathak has referred the
dictum of Apex Court in re: State of Mysore
vs. K. Manche Gowda (supra).

25. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, I am of the considered
opinion that before passing the impugned
order of dismissal the inquiry officer must
have conducted the departmental inquiry
strictly in accordance of law and the
disciplinay authority must have passed the
order of dismissal after affording sufficient
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The impugned order cannot be said as nonspeaking order if the reply so given by the
petitioner has been considered properly.
Not only the above since the charge
regarding past conduct was indicated in the
charge-sheet and departmental inquiry was
conducted on that charge also, therefore,
considering the past conduct of the
petitioner by the inquiry officer may not be
said to be any illegality. Lastly, considering
the findings of inquiry officer and order of
punishment being issued by the disciplinary
authority, I do not find that the punishment
order of dismissal was disproportionate.

26. The Apex Court in re: B.C.
Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (1995) 6
SCC 749, Union of India vs. G.
Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463, Union of
India vs. Mohd. Ibrahim (2004) 10 SCC
87, State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal
Srivastava (2006) 3 SCC 276, NorthEastern Karnatak Roadways Corporation
vs. Ashappa (2006) 5 SCC 137 and Man
Singh vs. State of Haryana (2008) 12 SCC
331 has consistently held that the High
Court should be very slow in interfering
with the quantum of punishment unless it is
found to be shocking to one's conscience.

27. The Apex Court has followed the
'Wednesbury Test[ (1948) 1 KB 223 in
adjudicating the issue engaging attention as
to whether the Court should interfere in the
quantum of punishment. As per aforesaid
test the point is to be seen as to whether the
decison was illegal or suffered from
9 All Ravi Shanker Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
575
procedural improprieties or was one which
no sensible decision maker could, on
material before him and with framework of
law have arrived at ...Whether the decision
was absurd or perverse. The Court would
not, however, go into the gravity of choice
made by the authority nor could the Court
substitute its decision. As a matter of fact
the Court can only test the decision making
process whether adopted correctly or not
but not the decision.

28. In the present case the inquiry
officer has not only considered the defense
reply of the petitioner but has afforded an
opportunity
of
personal
hearing
on
18.3.2019 for conducting oral inquiry but
the petitioner has categorically submitted
that except his defense reply he has nothing
to say nor does he want to examine any
material / witness. Thereafter the inquiry
officer has examined all relevant material
relating to the charges leveled against the
petitioner and arrived on the conclusion
that all the charges leveled against the
petitioner are found to be proved. Not only
the above the appointing authority issued
couple of letters / notices to the petitioner
after receiving the findings of inquiry
report dated 19.3.2019, as considered
above, for affording sufficient number of
hearing to the petitioner seeking any
material or evidence which could establish
that the petitioner was not guilty, but the
petitioner could not produce any material
or
evidence
showing
his
bonafide,
however, he has preferred couple of
explanations
before
the
disciplinary
authority. In these circumstances the
disciplinary authority has passed the
impugned order dated 29.7.2020 dismissing
the petitioner from service. I do not find
any infirmity or illegality in the inquiry
report dated 19.3.2019 and in the impugned
order of punishment dated 29.7.2020. Since
the past conduct of the petitioner was
absolutely unbecoming of a government
employee, therefore, the specific charge to
that effect was framed in the charge-sheet
and after departmental inquiry the said
charge was found to be proved, therefore,
considering the past conduct of the
petitioner by the inquiry officer would not
vitiate the inquiry proceedings. So far as
the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the gravity of misconduct
does not commensurate with quantum of
punishment, I am of the considered opinion
that after considering the entirety of the
facts and circumstances of the issue in
question, perusing the findings of inquiry
officer and material available on record viz.
a viz. explanations of the petitioner given at
the stage of inquiry proceedings the
disciplinary authority has properly awarded
the punishment of dismissal against the
petitioner. As per impugned order itself it
has been indicated that the petitioner was
placed under suspension on 22.1.2000 and
after conclusion of the inquiry the lenient
view was adopted against the petitioner
awarding him serious warning with censure
entry. On that point of time more or less
similar charges were leveled against the
petitioner i.e. unauthorized absence, misbehaviour with the officials / officers etc.
As per impugned order the petitioner was
not able to type even half of page within
three days whereas he was discharging his
duties of clerk / typist. The petitioner was
again suspended on 14.8.2003 more or less
on the same charges i.e. careless and
irresponsible
behaviour,
indisciplined
behaviour,
habitual
absentee,
misbehaviour with superior officers and not
following
the
direction
of
superior
authorities. After conclusion of second
inquiry two increments of the salary of the
petitioner has been withheld with adverse
entry. Some letters of the department were
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also
considered
by
the
disciplinary
authority which indicates that immediate
superior of the petitioner has indicated that
the petitioner did not take any interest in
discharging his official duties and had got a
lot of work pending. Again, the petitioner
was placed under suspension on 24.9.2018
more or less on the same charges and after
conclusion of the departmental inquiry the
inquiry officer submitted his findings
before
the
disciplinary
authority
on
19.3.2019
recommending
for
major
penalty. Since the disciplinary authority
was conscious about the fact that before
passing the order of major punishment the
petitioner
must
have
been
afforded
sufficient number of hearing, therefore, the
disciplinary authority has admittedly issued
so many letters / notices / show cause
notices seeking explanation from the
petitioner asking for production of relevant
material / evidence which could show the
bonafide of the petitioner but no such
material / document has been produced
before the disciplinary authority, therefore,
the disciplinary authority has passed the
order of dismissal which is contained as
Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.

29. Considering the entirety of the facts
and circumstances in issue, I do not find that
the impugned order of punishment is
excessive or does not commensurate with the
gravity of mis-conduct inasmuch as the
petitioner was in a habit of habitual
absentism, unauthorized leave, indisciplined
behaviour with superior officers / officials
and not discharging the duties as per
parameters befitting for the government
employees, therefore, on earlier occasions he
was awarded censure entry for the year 199798, 1998-99 vide order dated 20.7.2000 with
serious warning. Again vide order dated
31.5.2004 he was awarded adverse entry and
his two increments of salary has been
withheld. Despite the serious warning having
been given to the petitioner time and again by
the authorities concerned from the very
beginning but instead of improving his
behaviour he indulged in mis-behaviour and
indiscipline with the superior officers /
officials and continued habitual absentism
and proceeded on unauthorized leave without
caring the directions of officers. Therefore,
the severe most punishment of the service
jurisprudence i.e. dismissal which was
awarded to the petitioner does not shock the
conscience of the Court. So far as the
decision making process awarding major
punishment to the petitioner is concerned, I
do not find any flaw or infirmity in such
process and I do not find that such decision
was absurd or perverse. Therefore, I do not
incline to interfere the punishment awarded
to the petitioner.

30. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed being misconceived.

31. No order as to costs.

32. Before parting with, I put a note
of appreciation for Ms. Shama Parveen,
Law Clerk, for making thorough research
on the case laws.
----------
(2021)09ILR A576
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 18755 of 2021

Vipin Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: