LexCHATRAPAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 2 S.C.R. 348 : 2024 INSC 115 Chatrapal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2461 of 2024) 15 February 2024 [B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the appellant were duly established. Inquiry report was accepted and the appellant was dismissed from service. Whether the dismissal of the appellant was justified and was the High Court justified in upholding the same. Headnotes Service Law – Findings recorded by Inquiry Officer – Interference – Scope – Appellant appointed as Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship was later transferred and posted as Process Server however, was being paid the salary of Ardly – Aggrieved, appellant made representations – Appellant was subjected to departmental inquiry on charges of misconduct, insubordination alleging that he used inappropriate, derogatory and objectional language and made false allegations against various higher officials; and had sent the representations directly to the High Court and Chief Minister/Minister without routing the same through proper channel – Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the appellant were established – Appellant dismissed – Dismissal upheld by High Court – Correctness: Held: Finding of making false statement and allegation in his representation not borne out from the record – Since, this finding is the fulcrum of the reasoning to hold that charge no.1 is proved, this finding in the inquiry report is perverse – Ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court – However, when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered – Further, [2024] 2 S.C.R. 349 Chatrapal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed – Impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order terminating the appellant from service, set aside – Appellant reinstated with all consequential benefits. [Paras 9, 11-13] Case Law Cited Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, [2014] 13 SCR 1312 : (2015) 2 SCC 610; State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491; Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, [2014] 1 SCR 987 : (2014) 4 SCC 108 – relied on. Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1986] 2 SCR 957 : AIR 1986 SC 995; Santosh Bakshi vs. State of Punjab, [2014] 6 SCR 138 : AIR 2014 SC 2966 – referred to. List of Acts U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules. List of Keywords Class-IV employee; Departmental inquiry; Inquiry Officer; Dismissal; Misconduct; Insubordination; Finding of guilt; Perverse findings; Financial hardship; Termination from service; Reinstatement; Consequential benefits. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2461 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WPC No. 297 of 2008 Appearances for Parties P. K. Dey, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shilpi Dey Auditya, Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Md. Anas Chaudhary, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Subart, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Advs. for the Appellant. Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Vinayak Mohan, Advs. for the Respondents.. 350 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No. 297 of 2008, whereby the High Court has dismissed the petition of the appellant being devoid of merit. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant was appointed on permanent basis on the post of Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship. The appellant was transferred and posted as Process Server in the Nazarat of outlying court of Baheri, District Bareilly on 24.08.2001. In compliance of the transfer order, the appellant joined the Nazarat Branch in Baheri, District Bareilly as Process Server on 31.08.2001 but he was being paid the remuneration of Ardly. 3.1 Being aggrieved, the appellant made a representation on 20.01.2003 to the Di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.