Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Grievance of petitioner is against an order passed against him holding that he is not entitled to payment of salary for a period of 59 days, on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The order is challenged on the ground that in respect of such absence, a show cause notice had been issued to petitioner to which he had submitted reply annexing therewith medical certificates claiming medical leave. His reply has not been considered. Instead the order has been passed, which neither refers to the contents of petitioner's reply in the matter nor the explanation submitted by petitioner has been examined on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an order passed by this Court in Writ-A No.10796 of 2017 (Ram Kishore Vs. State of U.P. and others), dated 8th March, 2017, which reads as under:- "Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virakram Bahadur Yadav, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 25.8.2016 whereby penalty of withholding the salary of 25 days has been imposed against him. The impugned order, however, discloses that the petitioner was given a show cause notice against which he submitted his reply but the impugned order does not show what was the reason for holding that the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory. If a show cause notice is given and reply is called and reply is submitted, the same has to be considered and the material therein has to be discussed before passing the impugned order. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 25.8.2016 cannot survive and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.4, Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, District Etawah to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above and pass fresh orders in accordance with law."
(2.) Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner's grievance can be considered, afresh, in accordance with law.
(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this Court finds that once petitioner's explanation in the matter had been called for, and the petitioner had submitted his reply, it was expected that authorities shall deal with such defence on merits before proceeding to pass an order. As no such consideration is reflected in the order, on merits, as such the same cannot be sustained.;