Introduction Allahabad High Court clarifies UP Lokayukta Act
Allahabad High Court recently addressed a writ petition challenging the suspension order dated 21-06-2023 against a petitioner by the Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad. The Allahabad High Court, led by Justice Jahangir Jamshed Munir, dismissed the petition but mandated the completion of the inquiry within three months. This comprehensive analysis delves into the legal intricacies surrounding the petitioner’s suspension, previous termination, and the application of Section 17(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975.
Allahabad High Court Case Background
The petitioner contended that the suspension order lacked jurisdiction, citing a prior termination on similar grounds dated 16-09-2019. This earlier termination had been quashed by the court, asserting the absence of a departmental inquiry and no evidence of tampering with the petitioner’s date of birth in the service book. Through a judgment on 05-11-2019, the court directed the petitioner’s reinstatement with all consequential benefits, effectively challenging the basis for the subsequent suspension order.
Nature of the Order Dated 16-09-2019
The Allahabad High Court carefully examined the nature of the order dated 16-09-2019, emphasizing that it did not terminate the petitioner’s services but ceased them due to the petitioner exceeding the age of superannuation. This order was based on the recommendations of a committee established by the District Magistrate. The Allahabad High Court highlighted the crucial distinction between termination and cessation, underscoring that the latter was not subject to the Allahabad High Court prior judgment.
Scope of Inquiry and Disciplinary Jurisdiction
Despite the court’s earlier ruling that there was no cutting or overwriting in the petitioner’s service book, it clarified that this did not preclude the Nagar Palika Parishad from initiating a disciplinary inquiry. The court asserted that the previous order merely addressed a specific aspect and did not foreclose the Parishad’s disciplinary jurisdiction to investigate whether the petitioner manipulated his date of birth in the service records.
To support this stance, the court referred to the precedent set in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. The Allahabad High Court cited this case to underline that a prior adjudication on merits by a quasi-judicial body did not necessarily bar the commencement of another inquiry on the same subject matter.
Application of Section 17(2) of the Lokayukta Act
Addressing the argument that the suspension order was passed based on Lokayukta’s recommendations and, therefore, exempt from review under Section 17(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up Lokayuktas Act, 1975, the Allahabad High Court provided a nuanced perspective. It clarified that Section 17(2)’s reference to excluding court jurisdiction to review or quash Lokayukta’s orders did not act as a bar to the High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Allahabad High Court elucidated that the restriction in Section 17(2) applied to courts of ordinary jurisdiction and not to the High Court when exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. In doing so, it emphasized the constitutional prerogative of the High Court to examine matters falling within its writ jurisdiction, even if they were subject to the Lokayukta’s recommendations.
Allahabad High Court clarification of the case
The Allahabad High Court, in dismissing the writ petition challenging the suspension order, has provided a comprehensive legal analysis. It clarified the nature of the prior order, the scope of inquiry, and the applicability of Section 17(2) of the Lokayukta Act. This case underscores the intricate balance between administrative actions, quasi-judicial decisions, and the constitutional powers of the High Court in employment disputes.
Must Read:- Madras High Court TN Gaming Act covers chance, not skill games
One Reply to “Allahabad High Court clarifies does the bar on Court review under UP Lokayukta Act apply?”