Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37011-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 195 of 2025 Appellant :- Housing Commissioner,U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad,Lko. And 2 Others Respondent :- Keshav Dev Sharma And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- Anwar Ashfaq,C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. [Order on C.M. Application No. IA/1/2025] 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, Sri Anwar Ashfaq, learned counsel for the sole respondents and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State. 3. The instant special appeal, filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court, is delayed by 59 days, as per the office report placed on record. 4. The appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit. The reasons, spelt out in the affidavit, are just and plausible. Although, objections have been filed by the respondents opposing the prayer but on close scrutiny of the explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, we have convinced that a case for condonation of delay is made out. The objections are overruled. The application seeking condonation of delay is allowed. [Order on Appeal] 1. The record reveals that the sole respondent was proceeded against with the issuance of a chargesheet alleging as many as six charges. The respondent was put to notice and was called upon to submit his explanation in response thereto. 2. The case of the respondent put forth before the Writ Court was on the touchstone of Rule 27(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (Sewa Ki Sharte) Viniyam, 1966, which essentially provides the procedure in which the disciplinary proceedings for proving the alleged charges is to be adhered to. The Writ Court, having regard to the rival contentions as well as the factual position, has categorically opined as under: "16. In the instant case, as indicated above, a perusal of the enquiry report dated 08.09.2022 would indicate that the enquiry report has been drawn up only on the basis of reply to the charge- sheet which had been submitted by the petitioner without examining any witnesses in support of the charges or without having the evidence which was led against the petitioner to be proved by any of the witnesses. Even otherwise, no date, time and place of enquiry was fixed which clearly emerges from perusal of the enquiry report and thus on this ground alone, impugned punishment order dated 28.09.2022 passed on the basis of the enquiry report dated 08.09.2022 per which the petitioner has been dismissed from service gets vitiated." 3. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid observations that the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition by granting the relief as under: "17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.09.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition is quashed. Consequences to follow. 18. However, it would be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner from the stage of the enquiry in accordance with law." 4. Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the charges levelled against the respondent are serious and opportunity, as per rules applicable in this behalf, was duly granted to the respondent. 5. We have considered the submissions put forth before us, however, the position contrary to what has been observed in Paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment reproduced above, could not be explained to the Court satisfactorily. The position of law, as has been appreciated by the Writ Court, remains the correct position of law. Once a categorical finding has been recorded as regards non-adherence to the procedure prescribed under law which is just and proper, we come to an irresistible conclusion that the grant of relief by the Writ Court was a consequence of the opinion sustainable in law. 6. It is equally apparent from the judgment impugned herein that the Writ Court has granted opportunity to proceed against the respondent afresh. That being the position, no ground is made out for taking a different view in the matter. 7. The special appeal devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. [Shree Prakash Singh,J. ] [Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.] Order Date :- 1.7.2025 kkv/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench