KAILASH SHANKERversusDITT.MAGISTRATE KHERI AND 1 ORS

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4188 of 2000

Petitioner :- Kailash Shanker
Respondent :- Ditt.Magistrate Kheri And 1 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.Misra,Amitabh Mishra,Pankaj Kr.
Srivastava,S.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

1. Heard Sri Amitabh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed, challenging the order
dated 21.12.1999, passed by the respondent No.1, contained in
Annexure-7 to the writ petition with the further prayer to issue a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the
petitioner to work as an Assistant Accountant in the Treasury at
Lakhimpur Kheri and to pay salary regularly for the said post.

3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed on
the post of Assistant Accountant in the Treasury at Lakhimpur
Kheri. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 5.11.1993
without copy of the documentary and oral evidence mentioned
in the same. The petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer that
he be furnished with a copy of documentary evidence and
statements of witnesses. He submitted reply to the charge sheet
on 14.12.1993. After submission of said reply, the Enquiry
Officer did not fix any date, time and place for holding the
enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the
disciplinary authority.

4. The disciplinary authority passed the order of reversion of the
petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk. Being aggrieved by the
order of punishment, the petitioner challenged the same before
this Court by way of Writ Petition No.2156 (S/S) of 1999,
which was allowed and the impugned order was set aside, vide
judgment and order dated 27.7.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner
was issued a show cause notice, enclosing with the copy of the
enquiry report on 26.10.1999. The petitioner submitted a
detailed reply on 10.11.1999. Vide impugned order dated
21.12.1999, the punishment order dated 15.3.1994 has been
upheld and passed afresh against the petitioner, whereby the
petitioner was reverted on the post of Junior Clerk and adverse
entry was recorded in the character roll of the petitioner. The
said order has been assailed in the present writ petition.
                                        5. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed an
                                        order on 8.8.2000, which is being quoted below :-

                                        "...

                                        In the meantime, the impugned order of punishment dated 21.12.99 shall
                                        remain stayed till next date of listing."

                                        6. On perusal of the interim order, it is evident that operation of
                                        the impugned order was stayed. In compliance of the order, the
                                        petitioner continued to hold the post of Assistant Accountant
                                        and continued thereon. After the grant of interim order, the
                                        petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated
                                        31.10.2000, which was also assailed in a separate writ petition
                                        which was treated to be an application in the present writ
                                        petition. On 29.11.2001, an interim order was granted, staying
                                        the operation of the order of suspension. The petitioner
                                        continued to hold the post of Assistant Accountant and retired
                                        from the said post on completion of service on 30.11.2015.

                                        7. The District Magistrate, upon enquiry, held the petitioner to
                                        be not guilty of the charges levelled against him, vide order
                                        dated 24.2.2016. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by this
                                        Court on 30.3.2017, wherein there was certain observation that
                                        the State Government can initiate suo-motu revision proceeding
                                        against the order of the District Magistrate and in compliance
                                        thereto, the State Government, treating the revision to be filed
                                        against the order of the District Magistrate, passed an order on
                                        23.3.2018, affirming the order of the District Magistrate,
                                        holding the petitioner to be not guilty of the charges. Meaning
                                        thereby, at present, there is no disciplinary proceeding pending
                                        against the petitioner.

                                        8. On perusal of the record, it is transpired that on attaining the
                                        age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired and no
                                        disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. The impugned
                                        order was stayed by this Court and on the said basis, the
                                        petitioner continued in service and has been paid salary,
                                        therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ
                                        petition pending before this Court.

                                        9. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the
                                        writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the
                                        respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner for the
                                        payment of post retiral dues, as admissible to him within a
                                        period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified
                                        copy of this order.

                                        Order Date :- 5.12.2022
Digitally signed by GAUTAM
TECKCHANDANI
                                        Gautam
Date: 2022.12.09 14:43:41 IST
Reason:
Location: High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench