Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. Allahabad High Court/
  4. 2024/
  5. February

U.p. State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Another vs. Dilip Kumar Shukla and Another

Decided on 29 February 2024• Citation: /1495/2024• Allahabad High Court
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                                     Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18323-DB
                             Court No. - 1                                        
                             Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1495 of 2024                  
                             Petitioner :- U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Lko. Thru.
                             Its Chairman And Another                             
                             Respondent :- Dilip Kumar Shukla And Another         
                             Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Shukla             
                             Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra              
                             Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.                      
                             Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.                            
                             1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.        
                             2. The instant writ petition is directed against the 
                             judgement/order passed by  the  U.P.  State Public   
                             Service Tribunal vide order dated 31.05.2023 whereby 
                             claim petition filed by opposite party no.1 against a
                             special censure punishment awarded vide order dated  
                             17.10.2016 was allowed and the order of punishment   
                             was set aside.                                       
                             3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that
                             learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition has
                             specifically observed that the inquiry against the   
                             opposite party no.1 was not held according to the    
                             procedure as prescribed and secondly the punishment  
                             imposed upon   the delinquent employee  not being    
                             specified under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal)  
                             Rules,1992 was thus without authority of law.        
                             4. It is thus urged that once the tribunal itself had
                             noticed discrepancy in the inquiry proceedings, the  
                             matter ought to have been remitted to the appointing 
                             authority for holding the enquiry as per the procedure
                             prescribed afresh. The argument put-forth before us is
                             attractive but on an empirical consideration of the  
                             judgement impugned  herein, we  find that the loss   
                             alleged to have been caused to the Corporation is not
                             a loss which may have actually occurred but is rather
                             an estimation of  negligence attributed against the  
                             conduct of the delinquent employee. Insofar as the   
                             imposition of punishment    of special censure  is   
                             concerned, the same  admittedly is  not prescribed   
                             under  the rules  whereunder  the  employee  was     
                             proceeded against.                                   
                             5. We would  have granted the liberty of proceeding  

                             against the delinquent employee afresh but the nature
                             of allegations being only the  dereliction of duty   
                             coupled with  the  clear indication that a  minor    
                             punishment was  imposed,  hence  reopening of the    
                             proceedings for no purpose would  not be just and    
                             proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.    
                                e  find no error with the impugned  judgement     
                             6. W                                                 
                             rendered by the Public Service Tribunal in the given 
                             facts and circumstances of the case which though a   
                             possible view, cannot be faulted with, hence the writ
                             petition bereft of any merit is accordingly dismissed.
                             7. It is however open  to the  petitioners to make   
                             compliance of the order passed by the tribunal within
                             a period of  three months  and to  this extent the   
                             judgement passed by the Tribunal is modified.        
                             Order Date :- 29.2.2024                              
                             Shahnaz                                              
    Digitally signed by :-                                                        
    SHAHNAZ BANO                                                                  
    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,                                        
    Lucknow Bench