- (1.) WE have heard Shri Man Mohan Nath Sinha the petitioner appearing in person. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Typist in Civil Secretariat, Lucknow in April, 1971. He was selected for the post of Personal Assistant in the year 1972, and was appointed as such in the year 1973. He was granted selection grade in the year 1985, and was promoted as Private Secretary (a Gazetted post) in the year 1992. The petitioner was given promotional pay scale in the year 1999, and was promoted as a Private Secretary Class -II. In his long service as Private Secretary in the Civil Secretariat, he was attached to various officers including the Chief Secretary of U.P. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.11.2003 passed by the Secretary, Secretariat Administration, (Establishment) Anubhag -2, Lucknow, dismissing him from service. He has prayed for allowing him to work on the post of Private Secretary and to give such directions as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation.
(3.) AFTER exchange of affidavits, the writ petition was heard and was allowed on May 23, 2008. The petitioner was reinstated by office Memo dated 29.8.2008. The State challenged the judgment dated 23.5.2008 in the Supreme Court. The Civil Appeal No. 5549 of 2009 filed by the State was allowed by the Supreme Court, and while setting aside the judgment dated 23.5.2008 the Supreme Court directed that the writ petition be restored on the file of the High Court for fresh hearing and disposal. The Supreme Court held that it was not open to the High Court to re -appreciate the evidence on which the charges against the petitioner were found proved and the petitioner was dismissed from service. It was also held that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The Court does not sit in the judgment on the merits of the decision. It was not open to the High Court to re -appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the enquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the enquiry officer as the court of appeal and reach to its own conclusion. The High Court had scanned the evidence as if it was a court of appeal. The approach of the High Court suffered from manifest error and that the matter requires fresh consideration of the High Court in accordance with the law.;