# Amit Yadav Head Constable 112622578 v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 31
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-20
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 10700 of 2024
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-yadav-head-constable-112622578-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54655
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Departmental Disciplinary
Proceedings - Uttar Pradesh Police Officer
of Subordinate Ranks, (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 14 - Whether
during the pendency of the criminal
proceedings,
the
departmental
proceedings
should
be
stayed
?
-
Departmental as well as criminal, both the
proceedings can go simultaneously as
there is no bar. The question as to
whether during the pendency of the
criminal proceedings, the departmental
proceedings should be stayed depends
upon the facts and circumstances of the
case. One of the main consideration for
staying of the departmental proceedings
during the pendency of the criminal trial is
to see that the defence of the delinquent
Government Servant is not prejudiced in
the criminal trial. Court must record a
finding that non grant of stay on a
departmental proceedings would not only
prejudice the delinquent officer, that the
matter also involves complicated question
of law (Para 15, 16)

B. Civil Law - Departmental Disciplinary
Proceedings
simultaneously
with
the
criminal trial - In the instant case charges
levelled
in
departmental
inquiry
and
criminal case, emanate from the common
incident but the charges in both the
proceedings are different. Charges in
departmental
proceedings
relate
to
violation of the conduct rules and the
departmental rules while in the criminal
case charge relates to the offence under
various sections of the I.P.C. and of the
Arms Act. Though the evidence may be
common but the legal principles under
charges
are
entirely
different.
Also
petitioner submitted his reply on merits he
would be deemed to have subjugated
himself to the disciplinary authority. It
cannot be said that his defence can be
prejudiced during the criminal trial. No
infirmity in the departmental disciplinary
proceedings
simultaneously
with
the
criminal trial. (Para 13, 16)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Amit Yadav Head Constable 112622578 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
31

11. In light of the above, this Court is
of the considered view that mere acquittal
in the criminal case will not diminish,
reduce and extinguish the punishment
granted in a disciplinary proceedings and
accordingly no benefit of the acquittal
order can be given to the petitioner in the
disciplinary proceedings specially after
they have been concluded with award of
punishment.

12. In light of the above, this Court
does not find any merits in the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition is bereft of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 31
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 10700 of 2024

Amit Yadav Head Constable 112622578
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Syed
Anzar
Husain,
Ashutosh
Kumar
Srivastava, Ram Krishan Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Departmental Disciplinary
Proceedings - Uttar Pradesh Police Officer
of Subordinate Ranks, (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 14 - Whether
during the pendency of the criminal
proceedings,
the
departmental
proceedings
should
be
stayed
?
-
Departmental as well as criminal, both the
proceedings can go simultaneously as
there is no bar. The question as to
whether during the pendency of the
criminal proceedings, the departmental
proceedings should be stayed depends
upon the facts and circumstances of the
case. One of the main consideration for
staying of the departmental proceedings
during the pendency of the criminal trial is
to see that the defence of the delinquent
Government Servant is not prejudiced in
the criminal trial. Court must record a
finding that non grant of stay on a
departmental proceedings would not only
prejudice the delinquent officer, that the
matter also involves complicated question
of law (Para 15, 16)

B. Civil Law - Departmental Disciplinary
Proceedings
simultaneously
with
the
criminal trial - In the instant case charges
levelled
in
departmental
inquiry
and
criminal case, emanate from the common
incident but the charges in both the
proceedings are different. Charges in
departmental
proceedings
relate
to
violation of the conduct rules and the
departmental rules while in the criminal
case charge relates to the offence under
various sections of the I.P.C. and of the
Arms Act. Though the evidence may be
common but the legal principles under
charges
are
entirely
different.
Also
petitioner submitted his reply on merits he
would be deemed to have subjugated
himself to the disciplinary authority. It
cannot be said that his defence can be
prejudiced during the criminal trial. No
infirmity in the departmental disciplinary
proceedings
simultaneously
with
the
criminal trial. (Para 13, 16)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Uttar Pradesh & ors. VsBabu Ram Upadhya,
AIR 1961 SC 751

2. Uttar Pradesh & ors. VsBabu Ram Upadhya,
AIR 1961 SC 751

3.Ajeet Kumar Nag Vs G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil
Corporation, (2005) 8 JT 425
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, T.N.C.S.
Corporation Ltd. & ors. Vs K. Meerabai, JT 2006
(1) SC 444

5. Suresh Pathrella Vs Oriental Bank of
Commerce, AIR 2007 SC 199

6. Union of India & ors. Vs Naman Singh
Shekhawat, (2008) 4 SCC 1

7. Indian Overseas Bank Vs P. Ganasen & ors.,
AIR 2008 SC 553

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1.
Heard
Sri
Ashutosh
Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has assailed the charge-sheet
dated 19.10.2023 issued by Presiding
Officer/Circle Officer, Sadar, District-
Gonda and also seeks certiorari to quash
the impugned departmental disciplinary
proceedings inasmuch as against the
petitioner under Rule 14 (1) of the Uttar
Pradesh Police Officer of Subordinate
Ranks, (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1991.

3. It has been submitted that the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is working on the post of Head
Constable in Gonda at the relevant time
where a First Information Report was
lodged on 04.04.2023 by one Prince Yadav,
the brother-in-law of the petitioner under
Section 307 I.P.C. the said FIR was lodged
against Surendra Yadav, the brother-in-law
of the petitioner who is alleged to have
assaulted and injured the petitioner due to a
family dispute. Investigation into the said
occurrence was conducted and it was found
that the petitioner's brother-in-law has
lodged false First Information Report
against Surendra Yadav and the petitioner
was also involved in falsely implicating his
brother-in-law which fact was established
during the investigation. That the petitioner
had deliberately got himself injured in
order to lodge the First Information Report
against the brother-in-law, Surendra Yadav.
During the investigations no material was
found on which a charge-sheet would be
filed against the accused therein namely
Surendra Yadav the brother-in-law of the
petitioner but Section 195/203/211/109 of
the I.P.C. and 3/25/5/27 of the Arms Act
was lodged against the petitioner and his
brother Prince Yadav and other co-accused
who were found to have falsely implicated
the brother-in-law of the petitioner. On the
conclusion of the investigation a chargesheet has been filed in the Court of
competent
jurisdiction
on
24.06.2023
where the petitioner is facing the trial.

4. That on the ground of the same facts
the departmental proceedings was initiated
against the petitioner under Rule 14 (1) of
the Uttar Pradesh Police Officer of
Subordinate
Ranks,
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991. A charge-sheet was
issued to the petitioner on 19.10.2023
levelling the allegation of lodging a false
First
Information
Report
against
the
brother-in-law, he has brought disrepute to
the name of the entire Police Department.
The petitioner denied the allegations
levelled against him by submitting his
reply on 14.11.2023 and the Inquiry Officer
has concluded the inquiry and submitted
the inquiry report to the disciplinary
authority on 07.08.2024. On submission of
the inquiry report the disciplinary authority
has issued a show cause notice dated
25.09.2024 asking the petitioner to submit
his explanation. It is at this stage that the
petitioner has sought to file a present writ
petition challenging the entire disciplinary
11 All. Amit Yadav Head Constable 112622578 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
33
proceedings as well as the show cause
notice dated 25.09.2024 apart from the
charge-sheet issued to him.

5. In support of submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon
paragraph 492 of the Uttar Pradesh Police
Officer of Subordinate Ranks, (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1991, according to
which the result of the judicial trial of the
Police Officer should be awaited before
initiating disciplinary proceeding against
him. He has submitted that on the same set
of facts, a criminal trial is underway and
accordingly the respondents should not
have initiated disciplinary proceedings
prior to conclusion of the said trial and
hence the entire proceedings are illegal and
arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. In
support of his submissions he relies upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and
others versus Babu Ram Upadhya
reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 751.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing
Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ
petition. He submits that the petitioner has
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
disciplinary proceedings inasmuch as he
has submitted his reply to the charge-sheet
supplied to him and the inquiry is nearly
concluded and it is only at the stage of
issuance of a show cause notice, the
petitioner has approached this Court for
filing the present writ petition.

7. The second ground raised by the
learned Standing Counsel is that as per the
charge levelled against the petitioner is of
giving false evidence and filing a false First
Information Report against his brother-inlaw which is not the allegation in the
disciplinary proceedings, which is limited
only to bring him by sullying name and
reputation
of
the
Police
Department
because of his actions and submits that both
the charges are separate at this stage and
according, it cannot be said that for same
set of charges, the petitioner is being tried
in
a
criminal
record
and
also
departmentally
in
the
disciplinary
proceedings.

8. He further submits that there is no
such embargo in the Uttar Pradesh Police
Officer of Subordinate Ranks, (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1991 for simultaneous
proceeding
with
the
disciplinary
proceedings during pendency of criminal
trial, and therefore he submits that there is
no reason for this Court to interfere if the
sudden
proceedings
and
prayed
for
dismissed the writ petition.

9. I have heard rival contention of the
parties and also perused the record. The
entire proceedings have been initiated from
lodging of First Information Report by the
brother of the petitioner against his brotherin-law under Section 307 of the I.P.C. in
FIR No. 299 of 2023 lodged by Police
Station- Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir
Nagar. It is when the investigation was
carried out by the Investigating Officer, it
has found that the allegations levelled in
the said First Information Report were
patently false and the facts which emanated
were rather surprising that a false case was
made out with regard to the injury on the
petitioner and his brother-in-law was
sought to be falsely implicated in the said
criminal case.

10. It is further for the aforesaid
reason that the Investigating Officer did not
find any charge-sheet against the accused
named in the said FIR rather he has filed
the charge-sheet against the petitioner and
his brother under Section 195/203/211/109
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the I.P.C. and 3/25/5/27 of the Arms Act
against the petitioner, his brother and the
other co-accused who were found to be
complicit
in
lodging
of
the
First
Information report. When the facts were
brought to the knowledge of the superior
authorities of the petitioner, the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated and accordingly
to the charge-sheet the charge levelled
against the petitioner is that he being a
Police Officer has indulged in filing of a
false criminal case against his brother in
law and accordingly has brought disrepute
to the name of the Police Department.

11.
Accordingly,
considering
the
arguments raised by the petitioner assailing
the departmental proceedings it is noticed
that the petitioner himself has voluntarily
subjected himself to the departmental
proceedings inasmuch as he has submitted
his reply to the charge-sheet without any
demur though reply submitted by the
petitioner further indicates that he has
stated that the allegations levelled against
him or false and he has taken all the
defence available to him to show that the
charges levelled against him are false and
are not made out.

12. Apart from the above, he is also
stated that the criminal case is pending in
the Court of competent jurisdiction and he
is further prayed that the proceeding he
stayed till conclusion of the criminal trial.

13. From the above, It is clear that
once the petitioner has submitted his reply
on merits he would be deemed to have
subjugated himself to the disciplinary
authority. The only step remaining in the
disciplinary proceeding is the reply to be
submitted by the petitioner to the show
cause notice and the disciplinary authority
thereafter is required to take a decision with
regard to the guilt or otherwise of the
petitioner in the said inquiry. From a bare
perusal
of
the
charges
levelled
in
departmental inquiry and criminal case, it is
evident that the facts in both emanate from
the common incident but the charges in
both the proceedings are entirely different.
The departmental proceedings of charges
are relate to violation of the conduct rules
and the departmental rules in the present
case pertaining to the bringing down of the
reputation of the department while the
criminal case but relates to the offence
under Section 195/203/211/109 of the
I.P.C. and 3/25/5/27 of the Arms Act and
though the evidence may be common but
the legal principles under charges are
entirely different.

14. Considering the case of the
petitioner in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. & Another reported in (1999)
3 SCC 679 where it has been clearly held
that the departmental as well as criminal,
both the proceedings can go simultaneously
as there is no bar and there is being
conducted simultaneously. The question as
to whether during the pendency of the
criminal proceedings, the departmental
proceedings should be stayed depends
upon the facts and circumstances of the
case. In the case of Ajeet Kumar Nag
versus
G.M.
(P.J.)
Indian
Oil
Corporation reported in (2005) 8 JT 425
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the procedure followed as both the case
as well as subject matter of departmental
inquiry and criminal proceedings are
different and it cannot be said that when
criminal proceedings are going on a
particular criminal charge in that regard,
the departmental proceedings cannot be
allowed
to
proceed.
11 All. Smt. Krishnawati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
35

15. Subsequently, the similar views
were expressed in the case of Chairmancum-Managing
Director,
T.N.C.S.
Corporation Limited and others versus
K. Meerabai reported in JT 2006 (1) SC
444, Suresh Pathrela versus Oriental
Bank of Commerce, reported in AIR 2007
SC 199 and Union of India and others
versus Naman Singh Shekhawat reported
in 2008 (4) SCC 1 with regard to the issue
as to whether the departmental proceeding
should be kept in abeyance till the
conclusion of criminal trial was also
considered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Indian Overseas Bank versus P.
Ganasen and others reported in AIR 2008
SC 553 where the Supreme Court held that
where prayer is made that so long as
criminal
proceedings
are
going
on,
departmental proceedings may not be
proceeded, the Court must record a finding
that non grant of stay on a departmental
proceedings would not only prejudice the
delinquent officer, that the matter also
involves complicated question of law.

16. In the present case, once the
petitioner has already submitted himself to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
disciplinary
proceedings, he has submitted his reply that
it cannot be said that his defence can be
prejudiced during the criminal trial. One of
the main consideration for staying of the
departmental
proceedings
during
the
pendency of the criminal trial is to see that
the defence of the delinquent Government
Servant is not prejudiced in the criminal
trial. This plea is not applicable in the
present case inasmuch as the petitioner has
already tendered his response to the chargesheet in the disciplinary proceedings.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that it is
not a case for interference where the
departmental proceedings are being held on
the same charges of the criminal trial.

18. Accordingly, I do not find any
infirmity in the criminal trial proceedings
simultaneously with the criminal trial. The
writ petition is being devoid of merit is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 35
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 12642 of 2020

Smt. Krishnawati ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Bramh Narayan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Manu Singh

A.
Service
Law
-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article
226-entitlement
to
interest on delayed payment of retiral
dues,
including
family
pension
and
provident fund, to the legal heir of a
deceased
government
employee-The
petitioner
is
the
widow
of
govt.
employee who died in service-despite
receiving a "No Dues Certificate" the
retiral dues were not disbursed in a
timely manner-After prolonged delays
the dues were finally disbursed-The
court relied on Yogendra Singh Case and
Sanjay Upadhyay Case which establish
that delayed payment of pension and
retiral dues entitles the beneficiary to
interest-The
court
directed
the
respondents to pay simple interest at
8%
per
annum
for
the
delayed
period.(Para 1 to 9)