TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sthi, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. Present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 is preferred against the impugned judgement and order dated 13.3.2024 in Writ A No.1259 of 2024 (V.K. Mishra vs. State of UP and 4 others) by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as premature. 3. It appears from the record that the petitioner-appellant retired from the post of Secretary/General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited, Kanpur on 30.06.2016. After his retirement, the respondent no.3 engaged him on contract basis upto June, 2022. One Jai Ram Babu made a complaint before the Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax Kanpur against M/s Hind Security Force (respondent no.5), al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 21.12.2023. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Director General of Police, Economic Offence, Lucknow. He submits that the entire proceedings were drawn behind the back of the appellant-petitioner only on the behest and dictate of the complainant-respondent no.5. Even though the department was conscious that the petitioner had already superannuated way back in the year 2016, the ex-parte complaint was entertained. He submits that during his tenure, no departmental enquiry had ever been initiated/ conducted against him. Even though in case against superannuated employee, the State is inclined to hold an enquiry, due permission is required under Regulation 351A of Civil Services Regulations but no such permission was taken. Therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intainability of the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant, who had retired from the post of Secretary/General Manager of the mill in the year 2016. Finally, learned Single Judge has upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 13.3.2024 as premature with following observations:- "1. Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record. 2. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er had already retired in the year 2016 and during his service tenure, no departmental proceeding was initiated against him. After more than six years, the respondent authority had proceeded against the appellant and held the preliminary enquiry on 21.12.2023 that to an ex-parte even without taking any comment from a retired employee. In administrative action, which also entails civil consequences for a person, the principles of natural justice should be adhered to. Admittedly, no opportunity was given to the appellant before holding the preliminary enquiry and such a decision taken in violation of the principle of natural justice would be void. 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association Vs. D....