STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MANGALIK
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
March 04,2002
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
RAMESH CHANDRA MANGALIK
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
UNION OF INDIA VS. J AHMED [REFERRED]CHANDRAMA TEWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. THIRUK V PERUMAL [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHATRUGHAN LAL [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. HARENDRA ARORA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS VS. RADHEY SHYAM MAURYA [LAWS(GAU)-2004-3-112] [REFERRED]AGARTALA BENCH TRIPURA FOREST DEVP and PLANTATION CORPORATION LTD VS. JIBAN KR DASGUPTA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
P. SHAHEEN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBHA SUDHIR THAKUR PRINCIPAL M.S.M. HIGH SCHOOL VS. PS SHINDE PRESIDENT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
SRI TAPAN CHANDRA DAS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (DWS) VS. STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, P.W.D., GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA AND COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (A.R.) [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
G CHENNA REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-3-103] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA SARKAR VS. NATIONAL JUTE BOARD [LAWS(CAL)-2020-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
BISHAMBER LAL KAPUR VS. ALLAHABAD BANK AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2002-5-291] [REFERRED TO]
B D LUTHRA VS. CHAIRMAN and MANAGING DIRECTOR PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2004-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
NAND LAL SINGH VS. U P STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
SIBA PRASAD PATTNAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
MALDEVBHAI G. ODEDARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2014-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
CHITTARANJAN TRIPATHY VS. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(ORI)-2014-10-61] [REFERRED TO]
B D LUTHRA VS. CHAIRMAN and MANAGING DIRECTOR PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2004-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
C.P.OZA VS. VIJAYNAGAR EDUCATION SOCIETY [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
T. TAKANO VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-71] [REFERRED TO]
K S KARDAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, NEW DELHI AND ORS. VS. RADHEY SHYAM MAURYA [LAWS(GAU)-2004-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH VS. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH ID VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-12-176] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA KUMAR TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-143] [REFERRED TO]
S Rajeswaran VS. Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal [LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-227] [REFERRED TO]
ADHIR CH DHAR VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2005-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
CONSTABLE NO. 817 NAND LAL SINGH VS. U.P. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-347] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-115] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD UNIS KHAN QUADARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, NEW DELHI VS. SARVESHWAR DAYAL [LAWS(GAU)-2013-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
HEM CHANDRA CHUTIA VS. ASSAM COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-2014-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
M VIJAYAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-125] [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS. VS. P.I. BABU [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
E V RAMANARAYANAN, SENIOR MANAGER (STANDS REMOVED) VS. GENERAL MANAGER (HRM), HRM DEPARTMENT, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION AND ORS [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-358] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA SON OF SHRI CHHOGA LAL SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-1-155] [REFERRED TO]
EMIL MINZ VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY [LAWS(JHAR)-2005-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL VS. REGIONAL FOOD CONTROLLER JHANSI REGION SENIOR MARKETING INSPECTOR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-277] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPA SHANKER SINGH VS. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, U.P.S.R.T.C., VARNASI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-393] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA MUMBAI VS. ARJUN DEVI ANAND [LAWS(ALL)-2007-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK ANANDA PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2023-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER VS. RAM PRASAD MANDAL [LAWS(MPH)-2008-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
A SADANAND VS. SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
UDIT KUMAR PANIGRAHI VS. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-2014-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUNA CHARAN MISHRA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
BALJINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2005-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
SANTI SUDHA LAYEK VS. SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPURA FOREST DEVP. AND PLANTATION CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. VS. JIBAN KR. DASGUPTA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
R K SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-104] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. DHARAM SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
JSW STEEL LTD VS. AI GHURIAR IRON & STEEL LLC [LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Brijesh Kumar, J. -
(1.)Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)After holding disciplinary proceedings against the respondent Ramesh Chandra Mangalik an order of punishment was passed withholding his four increments of salary permanently and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,822/-. The said order was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition filed at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 15-12- 1999 setting aside the order of punishment and directing that the respondent would be considered for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. All consequential benefits were also allowed.The High Court came to the conclusion that the order of punishment was bad in law since principles of natural justice have been violated in holding inquiry due to non-supply of copies of all the necessary and relevant documents and for not affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. It was also held that no basis for arriving at the figure of the amount sought to be recovered was given. The State Government felt aggrieved by the above order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by Special Leave.
(3.)The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 19-2-1963, in the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. He was later on posted as Assistant Engineer Incharge on 8-5-1979 against the vacant post of Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Construction Division, Matatila. It has been pointed out that as a consequence of some orders passed in the litigation pending in this Court, relating to promotions to the post of Executive Engineer, the Assistant Engineers were not being promoted as Executive Engineers but were posted as Assistant Engineers In-charge. The Junior Engineers and the Assistant Enginers working in any project had been working under the overall supervision of the Assistant Engineer In-charge. During the period 16-5-1979 to 29-3-1981, the respondent had been looking after the execution of the work of the construction of Upper Rajghat Canal, Matalila and in that connection it was found that there was substantial difference in construction of ground levels and there was change in approved L-Section also. According to the Department changes of the alignments of L-Section were made without the approval of the Chief Engineer. As a result of unauthorised changes, the length of canal was increased by 63 meters. Apart from the above, other irregularities were also noticed. It appears that preliminary inquiry was made and thereafter a charge sheet was served upon the respondent on 6-4-1984 for regular departmental proceedings.
(2.)After holding disciplinary proceedings against the respondent Ramesh Chandra Mangalik an order of punishment was passed withholding his four increments of salary permanently and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,822/-. The said order was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition filed at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 15-12- 1999 setting aside the order of punishment and directing that the respondent would be considered for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. All consequential benefits were also allowed.The High Court came to the conclusion that the order of punishment was bad in law since principles of natural justice have been violated in holding inquiry due to non-supply of copies of all the necessary and relevant documents and for not affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. It was also held that no basis for arriving at the figure of the amount sought to be recovered was given. The State Government felt aggrieved by the above order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by Special Leave.
(3.)The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 19-2-1963, in the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. He was later on posted as Assistant Engineer Incharge on 8-5-1979 against the vacant post of Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Construction Division, Matatila. It has been pointed out that as a consequence of some orders passed in the litigation pending in this Court, relating to promotions to the post of Executive Engineer, the Assistant Engineers were not being promoted as Executive Engineers but were posted as Assistant Engineers In-charge. The Junior Engineers and the Assistant Enginers working in any project had been working under the overall supervision of the Assistant Engineer In-charge. During the period 16-5-1979 to 29-3-1981, the respondent had been looking after the execution of the work of the construction of Upper Rajghat Canal, Matalila and in that connection it was found that there was substantial difference in construction of ground levels and there was change in approved L-Section also. According to the Department changes of the alignments of L-Section were made without the approval of the Chief Engineer. As a result of unauthorised changes, the length of canal was increased by 63 meters. Apart from the above, other irregularities were also noticed. It appears that preliminary inquiry was made and thereafter a charge sheet was served upon the respondent on 6-4-1984 for regular departmental proceedings.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.