# Amrendra Kumar Singh v. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. Thru M.D. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 962
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-15
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 14162 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amrendra-kumar-singh-v-u-p-rajkiya-nirman-ltd-thru-m-d-ors-54868
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
26. In another judgment reported as
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran : (2015)
2 SCC 610, Supreme Court held that while
re-appreciating evidence the High Court
cannot act as an appellate authority in the
disciplinary proceedings. The Court laid
down the parameters as to when the High
Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary
proceedings : (SCC p. 617, para 13)

 "13. Under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, the High Court
shall not:

 (i) reappreciate the evidence;

 (ii) interfere with the conclusions
in the enquiry, in case the same has been
conducted in accordance with law;

 (iii) go into the adequacy of the
evidence;

 (iv) go into the reliability of the
evidence;

 (v) interfere, if there be some
legal evidence on which findings can be
based.

 (vi) correct the error of fact
however grave it may appear to be;

 (vii) go into the proportionality of
punishment
unless
it
shocks
its
conscience."

27. In view of the aforesaid
proposition of law laid down by the
Honble Supreme Court and the analysis
of the facts of the present case as recorded
hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality
or infirmity in the order of removal dated
31.05.2002 and the appellate order dated
10.09.2002.
28. Accordingly, this writ petition
fails and is dismissed.

29. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 962
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ - A No. 14162 of 2025

Amrendra Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. Thru M.D. & Ors.
 ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Whether inquiry proceeding can be initiated
against a retired employee, when the chargesheet has been issued after the retirement?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Working Manual of the
respondent Corporation: Rule 709(gha) -
Departmental proceedings can commence
only when the charge-sheet is issued to
the
delinquent
employee.
In
fact,
pendency of inquiry would be if such
proceeding is commenced. (Para 15, 16)

In present case, this is an admitted fact that the
charge-sheet has been issued on 8th August
2022, i.e., after the retirement of the delinquent
employee,
and
therefore,
the
date
of
commencement of the disciplinary proceeding
would be 8th August 2022, and therefore, the
provisions of Rule 709(gha), do not attract in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(Para 17)

B.
Further
the
Working
Manual
clause/table
709(cha)
also
does
not
favour proceedings undertaken by the
respondent Corporation as the date of
initiation of inquiry is 8th August 2025.
(Para 18)
12 All. Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. Thru M.D. & Ors.
963
The things should be done in the manner
prescribed and not otherwise, whereas the
charge sheet, which has been issued against the
petitioner, is not in consonance with the
provisions of Rules 709 (gha) and 709 (cha)
thus, the same is impermissible. (Para 19)

Charge sheet dated 8th August 2022 issued
against the petitioner is hereby quashed.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Union of India Vs. K.V. Janakiraman, (1991) 4
SCC 109 (Para 15)
2. Coal India Limited Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra,
(2007) 9 SCC 625 (Para 16)
3. Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5
SCC 142 (Para 16)

List of Acts
 Working Manual of the respondent Corporation.

List of Keywords
 retirement, service, inquiry proceeding, chargesheet, recovery, financial loss.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Shobhit Nigam, Harish
Singh, Vipul Singh

For Respondent(s): Shishir Jain

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Shishir Jain, learned
counsel for the respondent corporation.

2. The matter involves a pure
question of law, and therefore, the same is
hereby decided at the admission stage.

3. The present writ petition has
been filed seeking following relief:-

 "A) Issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing
the
charge
sheet
dated
08/08/2022, contained as Annexure No. 1
to this Writ Petition."

4. The challenge is laid to the
charge sheet dated 8th August 2022, issued
against the petitioner, on the ground that
no inquiry proceeding can be initiated after
the retirement of an employee."

5. The contention put forth by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of
Assistant Accounts on 5th June 1996, and
thereafter, he was promoted to the post of
Assistant Accounts Officer and after
attaining the age of superannuation, he
retired from service, on 31st August 2021
and prior to his retirement, the petitioner
was duly issued, 'No Dues Certificate' from
all concerned units, where he was posted,
during
the
service
period.
He
next
submitted that an office order was issued
on 12th April 2021, wherein the inquiry
officer was appointed, but no charge sheet
has ever been served upon the petitioner,
prior to his retirement, and that has been
served, on 8th August 2022 only. He
submitted that Civil Service Regulations
have not been adopted, admittedly, in the
department of the respondent Corporation,
and it has its own Rules and Regulations
regarding the inquiry.

6. He added that Rule 709(gha) of
the Working Manual of the respondent
Corporation reads as under:-

 "709 (घ) धर्ि धःवभागीर् जांच की
कार्वााही धलम्ब त रहते हु ए आरोधःपत
काधःमक धअिवषताा आर्ु प्र ःाप् त कर
रोवाधःनवृत्त हो जाता है, उस धःरधर्थत में धलम्ब त
धःवभागीर् जाुँच को इस धःनर्मावली के तहत
उसके सेवाधःनवृत्तिेर्कों से धःवत्ती र् क्ष धःत
की वसूली के धःलए जारी रखा जा सकता
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
है।परन्तु सेवाधःनवृत्त काधःमक को िण्ड नहीं
धःिर्ा जा सकता और न ही उक्त िण्ड के
उिेश् र् से कार्वााही प्र ःा रम्भ अर्थवा जारी
रखी जा सकती है धःकन्तु धःवत्ती र् िण्ड धःिर्ा
जा सकता है एवं धःवत्ती र् िण्ड िेने के उिेश् र्
से धःवत्ती र् क्ष
धःत की िनराधःश की वसूली हेतु जाुँच
की कार्वााही जारी रखी जा सकती है।"

7. Referring the aforesaid, he
submitted
that
the
aforementioned
provision prescribes that if an employee
attains the age of superannuation while
pendency of the departmental proceeding,
such enquiry can be continued for the
recovery of financial loss from the retiral
dues of such employee.

8. He has further drawn attention
towards Rule 709(cha) of the Working
Manual, which also reads as under:-

"709
(च)
धर्ि
काधःमक
के
सेवाधःनवृत्त के उपरान्त कोई तथ्य सामने आर्े
तो सेवाधःनवृत्त के पिा त् भी इस्‌ धःनर्मावली
के तहत अनुशाधसनक कार्वााही की जा सकती
ह, बशतेर् धःजस घटना के सम्बन् ि में जॉच प्र
ःा रम्भ कीजा रही ह. जाुँच करने की धःधतर्थ को
उस घटना को 04 वषर् से धअिक का समर् न
बीत चुका हो।"

9. Referring the aforesaid, he
submitted that this provision says that the
disciplinary proceedings can be done
against an employee even after his
retirement, provided the time period of four
years has not been elapsed from the date of
inquiry. He submitted that Rule 709(cha) is
not applicable in the present case as the
date of the incident is between 21st January
2013 to 24th December 2013, and as per
the office letter dated 12th April 2021,
whereby an inquiry officer was appointed,
the same is about more than eight years,
from the date of the incident, more so the
date of enquiry is 8th August 2022.

10. He further argued that so far as
the
provision
regarding
709(gha)
is
concerned, that would also not attract and
cover the field of the present issue, as
though the inquiry officer was appointed on
12th April 2021, that is prior to the date of
superannuation, but the charge sheet has
admittedly been served upon the petitioner
on the 8th August 2022, which is after the
retirement, and, as per the settled law, the
disciplinary proceeding commenced after
the charge-sheet is furnished to the
delinquent employee, and in that sense
only, it would be termed as pending
enquiry.

11. Concluding his arguments, he
submitted that since the chargesheet has
been issued after the superannuation of the
employee, i.e., on 8th August 2022, and
therefore, the issuance of the charge-sheet
itself goes against Rule 709(gha) of the
Working
Manual
of
the
respondent
Corporation, and therefore, the same is
unsustainable.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Shishir
Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation, has opposed the contention
aforesaid and submitted that on 12th April
2021, the Inquiry Officer has been
appointed to inquire into the matter, and
therefore, the proceeding has been started
from the date of appointment of the Inquiry
Officer. He submitted that the petitioner
retired on 31st August 2021, and the
proceedings have been initiated on 12th
April 2021, by the office order, whereby
the Inquiry Officer has been appointed, and
therefore, there is no unlawfulness while
12 All. Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. Thru M.D. & Ors.
965
undertaking the disciplinary proceeding
against the petitioner. He next added that in
furtherance of the order dated 12th April
2021, the Inquiry Officer prepared the
charge-sheet and issued the same on, 8th
August 2022, as such, there is no ambiguity
or erroneousness in the same.

13. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties, it is apparent that the
charge-sheet dated 8th August 2022 issued
to the petitioner is under challenge. When
this Court examines the matter in facts and
law of the present case, it is apparent that
the petitioner has been retired on 31st
August 2021, after attaining the age of
superannuation, and the charge-sheet has
been issued on 8th August 2022, which are
the undisputed facts between the parties.
The letter/order dated 12th April 2021 by
which the Inquiry Officer has been
appointed, is also an undisputed fact.

14. This court has noticed that the
respondent
Corporation
has
its
own
Working Manual, which prescribes the
rules for inquiry against the employees of
the Department, and Rule 709(gha) reveals
that the pending departmental inquiry can
go on for recovery of financial loss, after
the retirement of the employee, if the same
was pending during his service period.

15. The date of commencement of
the
inquiry
proceeding,
has
been
considered, in the celebrated judgment of
Union of India Vs. K.V. Janakiraman,
reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, wherein it
has been held that the departmental
proceedings can commence only when the
charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent
employee. In fact, pendency of inquiry
would be if such proceeding is commenced.
Paras 16 & 17 of the said Judgment read as
under:-
 "16. On the first question, viz., as
to when for the purposes of the sealed
cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal
proceedings
can
be
said
to
have
commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal
has held that it is only when a chargememo in a disciplinary proceedings or a
charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is
issued to the employee that it can be said
that the departmental proceedings/criminal
prosecution
is
initiated
against
the
employee. The sealed cover procedure is to
be resorted to only after the chargememo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency
of preliminary investigation prior to that
stage will not be sufficient to enable the
authorities to adopt the sealed cover
procedure. We are in agreement with the
Tribunal on this point. The contention
advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant-authorities that when there are
serious allegations and it takes time to
collect necessary evidence to prepare and
issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would
not be in the interest of the purity WRIA
No. 14162 of 2025 4 of administration to
reward the employee with a promotion,
increment etc. does not impress us. The
acceptance of this contention would result
in injustice to the employees in many cases.
As has been the experience so far, the
preliminary
investigations
take
an
inordinately long time and particularly
when they are initiated at the instance of
the interested persons, they are kept
pending deliberately. Many times they
never result in the issue of any chargememo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are
serious and the authorities are keen in
investigating them, ordinarily it should not
take much time to collect the relevant
evidence and finalise the charges. What is
further, if the charges are that serious, the
authorities have the power to suspend the
employee under the relevant rules, and the
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suspension by itself permits a resort to the
sealed cover procedure. The authorities
thus are not without a remedy. It was then
contended on behalf of the authorities that
conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench
of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each
other. Those conclusions are as follows:
(ATC p. 196, para 39)

 "(1) consideration for promotion,
selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar
or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld
merely on the ground of pendency of a
disciplinary
or
criminal
proceedings
against an official;

 (2) *

 (3) *

 (4) the sealed cover procedure
can be resorted to only after a charge
memo is served on the concerned official or
the charge-sheet filed before the criminal
court and not before;

 17. There is no doubt that there
is a seeming contradiction between the
two conclusions. But read harmoniously,
and that is what the Full Bench has
intended, the two conclusions can be
reconciled
with
each
other.
The
conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean
that the promotion etc. cannot be
withheld
merely
because
some
disciplinary/criminal
proceedings
are
pending against the employee. To deny
the said benefit, they must be at the
relevant time pending at the stage when
charge-memo/charge-sheet has already
been issued to the employee. Thus read,
there is no inconsistency in the two
conclusions."

16. Further in the judgments
rendered in the cases of Coal India
Limited versus Saroj Kumar Mishra
reported in (2007) 9 SCC 625 and Coal
India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha, reported in
(2011) 5 SCC 142, it has been reiterated
that
the
disciplinary
proceeding
commences only when the charge-sheet is
issued to the delinquent employee.

17. So far as the present case is
concerned, this is an admitted fact that
the charge-sheet has been issued on 8th
August 2022, i.e., after the retirement of
the delinquent employee, and therefore,
the date of commencement of the
disciplinary proceeding would be 8th
August
2022,
and
therefore,
the
provisions of Rule 709(gha), do not
attract in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.

18. Further the Working Manual
clause/table 709(cha) also does not favour
proceedings undertaken by the respondent
Corporation as the date of initiation of
inquiry is 8th August 2025.

19. It is trite law that the things
should be done in the manner prescribed
and not otherwise, whereas the charge
sheet, which has been issued against the
petitioner, is not in consonance with the
provisions of Rules 709 (gha) and 709
(cha) thus, the same is impermissible.

20. Consequently, the charge sheet
dated 8th August 2022 issued against the
petitioner is hereby quashed.

21. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.

22. Consequences to follow.
----------
12 All. Rohit Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
967
(2025) 12 ILRA 967
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ - C No. 11844 of 2025

Rohit Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i)
Whether
an
application
for
execution/implementation of a judgment and
decree passed under Section 229-B of the U. P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
is maintainable at the instance of the legal heir
of the original plaintiff under Section 146 of the
Code of Civil Procedure; and
(ii) Whether revisional authority committed
illegality in rejecting application on the ground
that the order was administrative and revision
not maintainable.

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - U. P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
- S. 229-B - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - S.
146
-
Application
for
implementation
of
judgment and order dated 29.01.1979 passed in
proceedings under Section 229-B - Application
moved by the legal heir of the original plaintiff -
Objection that the petitioner was not a party to
the original proceedings and therefore had no
locus standi - Distinction between applicability
of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC to pending
proceedings
and
Section
146
CPC
after
conclusion of proceedings - Rejection of
application on the ground that the order was
administrative and revision not maintainable -
Correctness of orders rejecting the application
and refusing to exercise jurisdiction.
HELD:
The provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC
would apply in a situation where the
proceedings are pending and necessary
substitution can take place during those
proceedings, but once the proceedings
stand concluded, it is only in exercise of
powers under Section 146 CPC that
appropriate action subsequent to the
judgment and order can be passed at the
behest of the person so claiming under the
plaintiff/respondent. The provisions of
Section 146 CPC have to be given an
expansive interpretation to protect the
interest of persons who are claiming
under
the
original
plaintiff
or
the
respondent. In exercise of powers under
Section 146 CPC, the application for
execution was maintainable at the behest
of the petitioner, who claimed himself to
be the sole legal heir of the original
plaintiff. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate
incorrectly
appreciated
the
law
and
rejected the application of the petitioner.
The revisional order, not interfering with
the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
was also illegal and arbitrary and was set
aside. [Paras 13, 15, 17] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Saila Bala Dassi v. Nirmala Sundari Dassi, 1958
SCC OnLine SC 140;
Varadarajan v. Kanakawalli & Ors., Civil Appeal
No. 5673 of 2009;

List of Acts
Constitution of India;
U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950;
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

List of Keyword
Section 146 CPC; Legal heir; Execution of
decree; Claiming under plaintiff; Declaratory
decree; Section 229-B Z.A. & L.R. Act; Locus
standi;
Beneficent
provision;
Liberal
interpretation.

CASE ARISING FROM
Challenge to the order dated 12.03.2024
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Nawabganj,
Barabanki,
rejecting
the
application
for
implementation
of
judgment dated 29.01.1979 passed under
Section 229-B of the U. P. Z.A. & L.R. Act,
and
the
consequential
order
dated
30.09.2025 passed by the Additional