Umesh Kumar Servjeet Singh vs Union Of India

A.J.Desai, J

By way of this petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made following prayers:-

“8. The petitioner, therefore, prays that:-

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction upon respondent no.2 to 4 to review the charge no.3 in the second Charge Sheet dtd.25.11.2019 issued to the Petitioner, considering the fact

that entire criminal complaint / FIR and other consequential proceedings, which is basis for framing charge no.3 has been quashed and set aside by the

Hon’ble Court vide Order dtd.27.02.2020 passed in Cri.M.A. No.4124 of 2020, in the interest of justice and equity.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct respondent no.2 to 4 to consider the representation / application dtd. 24.07.202 and 29.07.2020

(Annexure ‘A’ Colly) submitted by the Petitioner and take a decision after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within

such stipulated time as may be deem fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity and place the decision on record of this petition

AND till then Inquiry Officer may be directed not to proceed qua Charge no.3, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the

interest of justice and equity;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct respondent no.2 to 4 to consider the representation dtd. 17.07.2020 (Annexure ‘J’) to increase

the subsistence allowance of the Petitioner from 50% to 75% pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice and

equity;

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice;â€​

In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply dated 10.3.2021. Along with said affidavit an order dated

15.1.2021 has been produced. By the said order, the request made by the petitioner to drop charge No.3 is rejected. Said charge was framed on the

basis of a private FIR, which has been quashed and set aside by this Court.

Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner states that there are certain guidelines issued by the Central Government, which are not considered by

the respondent authority, and the petitioner would raise all the issues at the time of hearing before the departmental authority and the respondents may

be directed to consider all the contentions raised by the petitioner in the departmental inquiry.

Considering the fact that the prayer made by the petitioner to drop the Charge No.3 in view of quashment of FIR is already rejected, nothing would

survive in this petition. It is needless to say that the petitioner would be entitled to take all the contentions available to him, which the authority shall

deal with, after following principles of law and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The authority shall decide the issue about charge no.3

after examining relevant Circulars and Rules in this regard.

In view of above, petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged.