w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Anil Kumar Yadav v/s State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt.Lucknow & Others

    Service Single No. 27596 of 2017

    Decided On, 19 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN

    For the Petitioner: Pawan Kumar Trivedi, Advocate. For the Respondents: C.S.C.



Judgment Text

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

By means of an order dated 16.11.2017, this Court was pleased to grant four weeks' time to learned counsel for the petitioner to file the supplementary affidavit.

Lea

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to inadvertence, he had sought time to file the supplementary affidavit as by means of supplementary affidavit he was willing to enclose the order dated 04.08.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5272 (S/S) of 2007, but the said order has already been enclosed in the writ petition as Annexure No.3. Therefore, he has submitted that he does not want to file any supplementary affidavit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in identical matters, this Court was pleased to allow several writ petitions, one of which is Writ Petition No.5272 (S/S) 0f 2007 wherein vide order dated 04.08.2010 this Court was pleased to quash the order of dismissal of the petitioner directing the opposite parties to reinstate the said petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may also be granted the same benefits as his matter is also identical with the aforesaid matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards an order dated 24.11.2016 passed by this Court in Writ A No.245 of 2012; Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & others whereby this Court was pleased to quash the impugned punishment order, appellate order and the revisional order passed against the petitioner and the matter was remitted back to the authority concerned to pass appropriate order afresh in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that by means of impugned order dated 22.08.2017 the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh has again passed the identical order which had already been quashed by this Court, as aforesaid, therefore, the impugned order in this writ petition dated 22.08.2017 would be nullified in the eyes of law inasmuch as the authority concerned has passed the order without considering the directions so given by this Court while allowing the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2016.

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has got remedy to file appeal against the order dated 22.08.2017.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case since the impugned punishment order dated 12.08.2008, its appellate order dated 30.09.2009 and its revisional order dated 10.08.2011 have already been quashed by this Court with the direction to the Competent Authority to pass appropriate order in the light of order of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh, therefore, the petitioner may not be relegated, at this stage, to file the statutory appeal again and since this matter requires consideration, therefore, it should be heard on merits.

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter.
O R