# Ajit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1612
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-12-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30002 of 2010
- **Bench:** Sheo Kumar Singh, Virendra Vikram Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajit-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42376
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C. S. C.
Sri B.P. Singh
Sri K.C.Sinha
Sri P.S. Baghel
Sri Pushpendra Singh
Sri V.P.Mathur
Sri Gautam Baghel
Sri Sunil

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Disproportionate punishment-petitioner
while appearing I.A.S. Examination in
Union Public Service Commission-given
incorrect particulars of attempt-instead
of 8th written 7th attempt-cancellation of
candidature for the year 2009 and
debarring
for
10
years
in
future
examination-blindly followed by State
Public
Services
Commission-without
notices
opportunity-held-excessivewithout allegations of malice on part of
petitioner-punishment of cancellation of
candidature
for
2009
upheld-but
subsequently debarring for 10 years in
future examination-set-a-side.

Held: Para-21, 25 & 26

 Thus, we found that the punishment to
the
petitioner
for
disclosing
wrong
number of attempts made by him in
terms of not only debarring him from the
Civil Services main examinations 2009
but also debarring him for a further
period of ten years was definitely in
disproportionate punishment to him. The
action of the U.P. Commission in blindly
accepting the mandate without issuance
of the mandatory notice, debarring the
petitioner from all examinations to be
conducted by it for a period of ten years
also can not be held to be the legal
exercise of the powers of the U.P.
Commission.

The order passed by respondent no.3
dated 15.2.2010 insofar as it relates to
debarring the petitioner from the Civil
Services Main Examination, 2009 is
hereby upheld.

The
remaining
part
of
the
order
debarring the petitioner from all the
examinations
conducted
by
the
Commission from 11.2.2010 for a period
of ten years is hereby quashed.
Case Law discussed:
(2009) 15 SCC 620; (2010) 6 SCC 614; 2012
(3) ESC 1021

## Text

1612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30002 of 2010

Ajit Kumar Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C. S. C.
Sri B.P. Singh
Sri K.C.Sinha
Sri P.S. Baghel
Sri Pushpendra Singh
Sri V.P.Mathur
Sri Gautam Baghel
Sri Sunil

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Disproportionate punishment-petitioner
while appearing I.A.S. Examination in
Union Public Service Commission-given
incorrect particulars of attempt-instead
of 8th written 7th attempt-cancellation of
candidature for the year 2009 and
debarring
for
10
years
in
future
examination-blindly followed by State
Public
Services
Commission-without
notices
opportunity-held-excessivewithout allegations of malice on part of
petitioner-punishment of cancellation of
candidature
for
2009
upheld-but
subsequently debarring for 10 years in
future examination-set-a-side.

Held: Para-21, 25 & 26

 Thus, we found that the punishment to
the
petitioner
for
disclosing
wrong
number of attempts made by him in
terms of not only debarring him from the
Civil Services main examinations 2009
but also debarring him for a further
period of ten years was definitely in
disproportionate punishment to him. The
action of the U.P. Commission in blindly
accepting the mandate without issuance
of the mandatory notice, debarring the
petitioner from all examinations to be
conducted by it for a period of ten years
also can not be held to be the legal
exercise of the powers of the U.P.
Commission.

The order passed by respondent no.3
dated 15.2.2010 insofar as it relates to
debarring the petitioner from the Civil
Services Main Examination, 2009 is
hereby upheld.

The
remaining
part
of
the
order
debarring the petitioner from all the
examinations
conducted
by
the
Commission from 11.2.2010 for a period
of ten years is hereby quashed.
Case Law discussed:
(2009) 15 SCC 620; (2010) 6 SCC 614; 2012
(3) ESC 1021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Virendra Vikram
Singh, J.)

1. The petitioner has rushed to this
Court while complaining the indiscriminate
orders passed by the Union Public Service
Commission (hereinafter to be referred as
Commission) and U.P. Public Service
Commission (hereinafter to be referred as
U.P. Commission).

2. The brief facts are that the
petitioner in search of Government job
appeared
in
different
examinations
conducted by the Commission and the U.P.
Commission presently respondents no. 2
and
3.
3 All] Ajit Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1613

3. In the same series of examinations
he
appeared
in
the
Civil
Services
Examinations, 2009 conducted by the
Commission. In the Civil Services Main
Examinations while the application of the
petitioner
was
scrutinized
by
the
Commission, it was found that the petitioner
made false statement regarding the previous
attempts made by him. It was eighth attempt
whereas the petitioner showed it to be
seventh only. It was found that if the
petitioner would have disclosed the correct
number of previous attempts made, he
would not have been eligible for appearing
in all the concerned examinations.

4. After issuing notice to the petitioner
on 22.1.2010, the Commission passed the
impugned order dated 15.2.2010 and
thereby cancelled the candidature of the
petitioner for the Civil Services Main
Examination 2009 and also debarred him
from all the examinations to be conducted
by the Commission for a period of ten years
to be commuted from 11.2.2010. This order
was also circulated to all the State
Commissions.

5. Apart from the examinations
conducted
by
the
Commission,
the
petitioner also appeared in the examinations
conducted by the U.P. Commission. The
details whereof have been given in the writ
petition.

6. Having received the information
about debarring the petitioner, the U.P.
Commission also debarred the petitioner
from all the examinations with effect from
11.2.2010 for a period of ten years and did
not declare the results of the petitioner.
While the result of the petitioner was not
declared by U.P. Commission, he on
5.4.2010 filed an application under Right to
Information Act, which was replied in terms
that he has been debarred for all
examinations to be conducted by the U.P.
Commission. This office memo dated
12.4.2010 is also under challenge in the
present writ petition.

7. By filing the present petition, the
petitioner has made the following prayers.

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
decision dated 15.2.2010 taken by the U.P.
Public Service Commission as informed by
the information dated 12.4.2010 given to
the petitioner under Right to Information
Act.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite parties to declare the results of the
petitioner for the examinations that is
Combined
Lower
Subordinate
Mains
Exams-2004
(General
Recruitment),
(Combined
State
Lower
Subordinate
Prelims Examination Special Recruitment2004, Combined State/Upper Subordinate
Service
Mains
Examination-2007,
Combined State/Upper Subordinate Mains
Examination-2008, Combined State Upper
Subordinate Special Recruitment Prelims
Examination-2008, Combined State Upper
Subordinate Special Recruitment Prelims
Examination-2008, Combined State/Upper
Subordinate Prelims Examination-2009,
GIC Inter College Screening Examination2009 and may not be treated as debarred"

8. In the present case, pleadings have
been exchanged between the parties and
after hearing learned counsel for the parties
the petition is being decided.

9. It has been argued on behalf of the
petitioner
that
the
decision
of
the
Commission
dated
15.2.2010
is
1614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
indiscriminately harsh to the petitioner. It
has further been argued that under the
provisions of article 315 of the Constitution
of India, the Commission and the U.P.
Commission are two different and separate
entities and simply by the fact that the
Commission has debarred the petitioner
from further examination conducted by it,
the U.P. Commission was nowhere bound
by the decision and it could not have
debarred the petitioner in the manner it has
done and has been communicated to the
petitioner by its memo dated 12.4.2010.

10. It has also been argued that the
U.P. Commission has nowhere issued any
notice to the petitioner before debarring him
from examinations. Hence the order is bad
in law and can not be allowed to sustain.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
Commission has argued that according to
the prevalent policy, the order passed by the
Commission is being adopted by the U.P.
Commission and by the memo dated
12.4.2010, same has been communicated to
the petitioner.

12. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner could have been punished for
furnishing wrong information in the Civil
Services Main Examination 2009 for
furnishing incorrect number of attempts
made by him. If the petitioner would have
submitted the correct number of attempts
made by him, he would not have been
eligible to appear in the Civil Services Main
Examination. Hence the decision of the
Commission to the extent that he was
debarred from the Civil Services main
Examination 2009 could not said to be
illegal
exercise
of
powers
by
the
Commission.

13. Now the question is whether the
petitioner could have been debarred for
further ten years by both the two
Commissions for this act of the petitioner. It
was
necessary
for
both
the
two
Commissions presently respondent no. 2
and 3 to have justified the punishment in
terms that it was proportionately awarded
punishment.

14. On behalf of the Commission, the
only argument advanced was that as per the
prevalent policy and to provide uniform
punishment to all such candidates, who
have not given correct information, or have
submitted wrong information, order is
passed debarring them for ten years and
such order is accepted and enforced by all
the State Commission as well.

15. At the argument as it has been
advanced on behalf of respondents no. 2
and 3, the commissions, can not be
permitted to prevail in each and every case.
The facts are different and the punishment
should have been awarded as per the
prevailing and the attending circumstances.
Thus it has to be decided whether the
punishment awarded can be said to be
proportionate punishment.

16. The matter of proportionality has
repeatedly been considered by the Apex
Court. in the case of Chairman-cumManaging Director, Coal India Limited
and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri
and others, (2009) 15 SCC 620.In para 19
and 20 of this judgment the Apex Court
while discussing the proportionality held as
follows"

19. The Doctrine of proportionality is,
thus, well recognized concept of judicial
review in our jurisprudence. What is
otherwise within the discretionary domain
3 All] Ajit Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1615
and sole power of the decision maker to
quantity punishment once the charge of
misconduct
stands
proved,
such
discretionary power is exposed to judicial
intervention if exercised in a manner which
is out of proportion to the fault. Award of
punishment which is grossly in access to the
allegations cannot claim immunity and
remains open for interference under limited
scope of judicial review.

20. On of the tests to be applied while
dealing with the question of quantum of
punishment would be would any reasonable
employer have imposed such punishment in
like
circumstances?
Obviously,
a
reasonable employer is expected to take
into consideration measure, magnitude and
degree of misconduct and all other relevant
circumstances
and
exclude
irrelevant
matters before imposing punishment."

17. Again in the case of All India
Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam
Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614, explained the
principle of proportionality as a ground of
judicial review of administrative action. The
factor
of
proportionality
has
been
considered with the following observations:

"Proportionality, requires the Court to
judge whether action taken was really
needed as well as whether it was within the
range of courses of action which could
reasonably be followed. Proportionality is
more concerned with the aims and intention
of the decision-maker has achieved more or
less the correct balance or equilibrium.
Courts entrusted with the task of judicial
review has to examine whether decision
taken by the authority is proportionate, i.e.
well balanced and harmonious, to this
extent Court may indulge in a merit review
and if the Court finds that the decision is
proportionate, it seldom interferes with the
decision taken and if it finds that the
decision is disproportionate i.e. if the Court
feels that it is not well balanced or
harmonious and does not stand to reason it
may tend to interfere."

18.

The
matter
about
the
disproportionate punishment for wrong
disclosure of number of attempts by the
petitioner has reasonably been considered
by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Prem Chandra Yadav vs. Union of
India and others, 2012(2) ESC 1021, The
Court has considered the question as to
whether the candidate who does not
disclose correctly the number of attempts
that he has taken in the competitive
examinations, whether the candidature of
the petitioner can be debarred for further
period of ten years apart from the
examinations in question.

19. While considering the different
pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex Court,
the Court has decided that the such
punishment is indiscriminate and held that
the order for debarring the petitioner's
candidature in the concerned examination
alone was sufficient and the proportionate
punishment. We feel accede to the decision
of the Court.

20. The petitioner at the time he filled
up the Civil Services Main Examination
form was under giving his circumstances
when he was rushing for obtaining the
Government job and from his end, he filled
up almost all the examination form
regarding examination conducted by the
Commission
and
U.P.
Commission
respondent no. 2 and 3. In such a situation it
was most likely for the petitioner to have
forgotten or misplaced the exact number of
attempts made by him or in any case such a
possibility can not be excluded. Apart from
1616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
it, nothing could be put forward on behalf of
the Commission or the State Commission
that while making wrong number of
attempts, the petitioner has any malicious or
fraudulent intention. On the contrary, the
petitioner being a literate person could have
easily considered that such wrong reply
made by him may expose him to peril and
he was this wrong information by him may
easily be detected, specially when the entire
system with all the Commissions is fully
computerized. Since there is no such
circumstances to suggest the malice on the
part of the petitioner, the punishment of the
petitioner for debarring for a further period
of ten years is definitely is indiscriminately
disproportionate and this Court has every
reason to accede to the view held by this
Court in the case of Prem Chandra Yadav
(supra) referred to above.

21. Thus, we found that the
punishment to the petitioner for disclosing
wrong number of attempts made by him in
terms of not only debarring him from the
Civil Services main examinations 2009 but
also debarring him for a further period of
ten years was definitely in disproportionate
punishment to him. The action of the U.P.
Commission in blindly accepting the
mandate without issuance of the mandatory
notice, debarring the petitioner from all
examinations to be conducted by it for a
period of ten years also can not be held to
be the legal exercise of the powers of the
U.P. Commission.

22. It has been argued on behalf of the
U.P. Commission respondent no. 2 that it is
the prevailing practice that the order passed
by the Commission is adopted by the U.P.
Commission and the candidature of the
erring candidate is also debarred for the
same period as ordered by the Commission.

23. No legal strength could be put
forward on behalf of the respondents as to
why such practice is prevalent. Thus the
order of the U.P. Commission deserves to
be set aside. The order is otherwise also is
not sustainable as previous discussion
makes it clear that the proportionate
punishment
for
furnishing
incorrect
information in the application form was
debarring him in the concerned examination
only.

24. In view of the discussion made
above, the writ petition deserves to be partly
allowed with the following conditions.

25. The order passed by respondent
no.3 dated 15.2.2010 insofar as it relates to
debarring the petitioner from the Civil
Services Main Examination, 2009 is hereby
upheld.

26. The remaining part of the order
debarring the petitioner from all the
examinations conducted by the Commission
from 11.2.2010 for a period of ten years is
hereby quashed.

27. The order and the memo passed
by respondent no. 2 U.P. Commission
whereby the order of the Commission dated
15.2.2010 and the memo dated 12.4.2010
whereby the decision was communicated to
the petitioner has been adopted debarring
the petitioner to the same tune are hereby
set aside.

28. It is being made clear that in
pursuance of the order passed by this Court,
the petitioner shall not be allowed to appear
in any examination or the interview which
has already taken place and no examination
or the interview shall be conducted for the
petitioner alone.
---------
3 All] Suraj Bhan and others V. Addl. District Judge & Others
1617
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30312 of 2002

Suraj Bhan & Others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. District Judge & Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.C. Nigam
Sri Triveni Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.N. Sinha
S.C.

Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction)
Act 1972-Section 20(4)-Benefit claimed
by tenant-on ground on first day of
hearing-deposit of entire amount except
deficit of Rs. 249.65-held-decision of
Apex Court in M.C. Pal available-where
omission caused due to calculation with
result of human error-petitioner before
the Court below placed to deposit entire
amount-failed to availed the benefit-can
not be treated to arithmetical errorcitation
relied
by
petitioner
not
applicable-defence
rightly
strike
offpetition dismissed.

Held: Para-7

In the present case, it was not the case
of petitioners at any point of time that
deficit was on account of any clerical or
calculation mistake. On the contrary,
they have always asserted that this is a
correct amount which ought to have
been deposited and this is what has been
done. Having failed in his attempt in
both the Courts below, where benefit
under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 has
been denied and decree of eviction has
been passed, they have now come to this
Court but here also, in this writ petition,
there is no averment that short deposit
was on account of any clerical or
calculation mistake. This show that due
to deliberate intentional reasons short
deposit was made by asserting that
petitioner was not liable to deposit more
than Rs.8,200/-. Reliance thus placed on
Apex Court's decision in Mam Chand Pal
(supra) has no application to the facts
and circumstances of this case.
Case Law discussed:
2002(3) SCC 49; Writ Petition No.17220 of
1999 (Subhash Chandra Purwar Vs. District
Judge, Mahoba & Anr.) decided on 16.8.2012,
in paras 12 and 13; 2002 (1)ARC 370 (SC);
1982 ARC 734; 1976 ALJ 124; Writ Petition
No.24393 of 2003 (Murari Lal Vs. Sri Girwar &
Ors.) decided on 12.9.2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.C.Nigam, learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.

2. Admittedly on the first hearing of
the suit petitioners have not deposited
entire amount as contemplated in Section
20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1972") but against requisite amount of
Rs.8,449.65, the petitioner deposited
Rs.8,200/- on 31.8.1982.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that deficit was only marginal
i.e. Rs.249.65 which is a petty amount for
which petitioner should not have been
made to suffer and in this regard placed
reliance on Apex Court's decision in
Mam Chand Pal Vs. Shanti Agarwal
(Smt.), 2002(3) SCC 49.

4. It is no doubt true that tenant is
under
an
obligation
to
comply