- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the material available on record.
(2.) The instant review petition has been filed under Chapter V, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules for reviewing the judgment and order dated 13.2.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 27 (SB) of 2005 (Alok Saini Vs. Remote Sensing Application Centre and another). In the aforesaid writ petition, challenge of the review petitioner was his suspension order. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, this Court passed the following orders:- "It is pertinent to mention that in exercise of the powers conferred upon the State Government under Rule 23 (1) of Rules of Association of the Centre, the State Government had conferred upon the Secretary, Science & Technology, the administrative, financial and legal powers of the Director of the Centre. Moreover, from the record, it also comes out that the action taken by the Secretary, has been rectified by the Governing Body. Thus, the assertion of the petitioner that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and non est, is not acceptable. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of suspension. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However, it will be open to the opposite parties to pass appropriate order of punishment as the enquiry has already been concluded."
(3.) The instant review petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that Division Bench of this Court was ceased with the same question regarding validity of the order dated 13.2.2012 and vide judgment and order dated 6.9.2013, passed in Writ Petition No. 11 (SB) of 2004 (Amrednra Narayan Singh Vs. Remote Sensing Application Centre, Lucknow) passed the following orders:- "103. In view of the facts and circumstances and discussion, made hereinabove, the finding is summarised as under:- (i) ................................ (ii) ................................ (iii) ............................... (iv) ................................ (v) ............................... (vi) ................................ (vii) ......................... The Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 1191 of 1991 (R.S. Chaturvedi Versus State of U.P.) has rightly held that the government lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the functioning of the Centre and only the Governing Council possess jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and punish an officer of the Centre. 105. the writ petitions are allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure -1) 15.11.2003 (Annexure-2), 25.1.2003 (Annexure-3), passed in writ petition No. 11(S/B) of 2004, Office Memorandum dated 13.2.2004 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition No.507 of 2004), Impugned order dated 15.11.2003 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition No.1487 of 2003), impugned orders dated 15.11.2003 (Annexures 1 and 2), 14.10.2003 (Annexure No.3 passed in writ petition No. 1486 of 2003), impugned orders dated 15.11.2003, 25.11.2003 (Annexures 1 and 2), 14.10.2003 (Annexure No.3 to writ petition No. 1599 of 2003) with consequential benefits.";