1994 (12) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons ex- ist for adopting such a course it may Impose the penalty of- (i) censure, or (ii) Stoppage at an efficiency bar; Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against the Government servant concerned or to call for his explanation." 4. The Allahabad High Court has opined in the order under appeal that awarding censure without affording an op- portunity to the effected employee) to explain the material on the basis of which the penalty of censure is proposed to be awarded is violative of the principles of natural justice. This has been so held following a decision of that Court in State of UP. v. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava (1989 S.C.D.137). The High Court ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 4 of the U.P. Public Service (Tribunal) Act 1976. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition holding that awarding the censure entry without making a full oral enquiry as provided by the C.C.A Rules was violative of Article 311 of the constitution. The State of Uttar Pradesh questioned the order of Tribunal by way of a writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that while the Tribunal was not right in holding that it was necessary to hold a regular enquiry before awarding the said penalty, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be sustained on the ground of violation of principles of natural Justice. 7. Rule 55-B (a) of the U.P.C.C.A. Rules, it is obvious does not exclude o....