# Anjali Chaurasia v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1127
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 7888 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anjali-chaurasia-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50151
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - misconduct and malafide
exercise
of
power
-
Departmental
proceedings - Salary - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 Rule-7 Integrated
Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Section
20 r/w Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 - Section 129(1) - If a complaint
is received against an employee for grave
misconduct without affidavit, the said
complaint
would
not
debar
the
Department to look at the allegation
independently and conduct a preliminary
inquiry with respect to the same.

In the present case, the technical report as well
as preliminary inquiry report would suggest the
grave misconduct by the petitioner. It is not the
case
of
the
petitioner
that
except
for
anonymous complaint, there is no evidence
against the petitioner. The petitioner was fully
associated with during conduct of preliminary
inquiry, and the Three Members Committee has
submitted a report regarding gross misconduct
of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no violation
1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Government Orders dated 09.05.1997
and
01.08.1997
(mentioned
below).
The
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated
against the petitioner on the basis of the
departmental preliminary inquiry report, and not
on the basis of the complaint and, therefore,
there is no illegality in initiation of the
departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
(Para 20)

Government Orders dated 09.05.1997 and
01.08.1997 - Government had issued
Orders dated 09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997
that anonymous complaint should not be
entertained. However, if the complaint is
received from some important person then it
should be ensured that whether it was actually
sent
by
the
said
important
person.
If
anonymous complaint is received from any
other source, the affidavit of the complainant
should be sought and, he should be directed to
provide
evidence
in
that
regard.
The
Government issued again Order on 19.04.2012
that the earlier orders issued by it on
09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 should be strictly
complied with. (Para 15)

B. If a Government servant, exercising
quasi-judicial function, passes an order,
which is illegal, with malafide intention,
for extraneous purposes, and where there
is corruption involved, the Department is
not
precluded
to
proceed
with
the
disciplinary proceedings against such an
employee, if the order has not been
challenged in revision/appeal. (Para 20)

The
petitioner
has
been
placed
under
suspension
vide
impugned
order
dated
21.04.2022. The suspension does not amount to
punishment but an employee is placed under
suspension to hold disciplinary inquiry against
such an employee in a free, fair and impartial
manner.
When
allegations
against
the
delinquent employee are serious regarding
his/her misconduct, the suspension order cannot
be said to be invalid. Under Rule-7 of Rules,
1999, there is power of placing an employee
under suspension, which has been exercised
correctly for valid and cogent reasons for
placing the petitioner under suspension. (Para
21)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

## Text

5 All. Anjali Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1127
SCC p. 35, para 41] Constitution is a must
in the process of public employment."

**********
26. It is true that the respondents had been
working for a long time. It may also be true
that they had not been paid wages on a
regular scale of pay. But, they did not hold
any post. They were, therefore, not entitled
to be paid salary on a regular scale of pay.
Furthermore, only because the respondents
have worked for some time, the same by
itself would not be a ground for directing
regularisation of their services in view of
the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3)
[(2006) 4 SCC 1 : (2006) 4 Scale 197] .

46. The Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary,
State
of
Karnataka
vs
Umadevi : (2006) 4 SCC 1 it has been
specifically observed that the High Courts
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India should not
ordinarily issue directions for absorption,
regularization, or permanent continuance
unless the recruitment itself was made
regularly and in terms of the constitutional
scheme.

47. Thus, I find that the impugned
orders do not violate in any manner the
statutory prescription or any judgment of
this Court or the Supreme Court. So far as
challenge to the impugned orders is
concerned, I find no merit in the present
writ petitions, which are hereby dismissed.
However, since some of the petitioners are
retired or they are on the verge of
retirement, taking away the benefit which
has been conferred on them because of the
interim order dated 24.07.2003 would not
be justified and, therefore, it is provided
that while implementing the impugned
orders Government should ensure that the
benefit already conferred on the petitioners
or similarly situated persons should not be
withdrawn except that they should be
treated to have been regularized with effect
from the respective dates as per impugned
order dated 11/12.10.2018.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1127
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ-A No. 7888 of 2022

Anjali Chaurasia ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avinash Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - misconduct and malafide
exercise
of
power
-
Departmental
proceedings - Salary - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 Rule-7 Integrated
Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Section
20 r/w Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 - Section 129(1) - If a complaint
is received against an employee for grave
misconduct without affidavit, the said
complaint
would
not
debar
the
Department to look at the allegation
independently and conduct a preliminary
inquiry with respect to the same.

In the present case, the technical report as well
as preliminary inquiry report would suggest the
grave misconduct by the petitioner. It is not the
case
of
the
petitioner
that
except
for
anonymous complaint, there is no evidence
against the petitioner. The petitioner was fully
associated with during conduct of preliminary
inquiry, and the Three Members Committee has
submitted a report regarding gross misconduct
of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no violation
1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Government Orders dated 09.05.1997
and
01.08.1997
(mentioned
below).
The
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated
against the petitioner on the basis of the
departmental preliminary inquiry report, and not
on the basis of the complaint and, therefore,
there is no illegality in initiation of the
departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
(Para 20)

Government Orders dated 09.05.1997 and
01.08.1997 - Government had issued
Orders dated 09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997
that anonymous complaint should not be
entertained. However, if the complaint is
received from some important person then it
should be ensured that whether it was actually
sent
by
the
said
important
person.
If
anonymous complaint is received from any
other source, the affidavit of the complainant
should be sought and, he should be directed to
provide
evidence
in
that
regard.
The
Government issued again Order on 19.04.2012
that the earlier orders issued by it on
09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 should be strictly
complied with. (Para 15)

B. If a Government servant, exercising
quasi-judicial function, passes an order,
which is illegal, with malafide intention,
for extraneous purposes, and where there
is corruption involved, the Department is
not
precluded
to
proceed
with
the
disciplinary proceedings against such an
employee, if the order has not been
challenged in revision/appeal. (Para 20)

The
petitioner
has
been
placed
under
suspension
vide
impugned
order
dated
21.04.2022. The suspension does not amount to
punishment but an employee is placed under
suspension to hold disciplinary inquiry against
such an employee in a free, fair and impartial
manner.
When
allegations
against
the
delinquent employee are serious regarding
his/her misconduct, the suspension order cannot
be said to be invalid. Under Rule-7 of Rules,
1999, there is power of placing an employee
under suspension, which has been exercised
correctly for valid and cogent reasons for
placing the petitioner under suspension. (Para
21)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

1. U.O.I. & ors. Vs K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC
56 (Para 16, 20)

2. Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
(1999) 7 SCC 409 (Para 16, 20)

3. Union of India & ors. Vs Duli Chand, (2006) 5
SCC 680 (Para 16, 20)

4. Ramesh Chander Singh Vs High Court of
Allahabad & anr., (2007) 4 SCC 247 (Para 16,
20)

5. Krishna Prasad Verma (Dead) through Legal
Representatives Vs St. of Bihar & ors., (2019)
10 SCC 640 (Para 16, 20)

Present petition challenges order dated
21.04.2022, by which petitioner has been
placed under suspension.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present petition, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner, who is at
present
Assistant
Commissioner,
Commercial Tax, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, for the following reliefs:-

"I) Issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dated 21.04.2022
annexed a Annexure No. 1;

II) Issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent to allow the
petitioner to work on the post Assistant
Commissioner, State Tax Department and
pay her regular salary;

III) Issue ad-interim direction to the
aforesaid effect.
5 All. Anjali Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1129

III) to issue a writ, order or direction
which the Hon'ble court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice looking to
the fact and circumstances of the case; and

IV)
Issue
order
or
direction
commanding the opposite parties to pay the
cost in favour of the petitioner."

2. The petitioner, after selection, was
appointed
on
the
post
of Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial Tax in the year
2014. On transfer of Mr. Sandeep Tiwari,
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax,
Mobile Squad, Barabanki to Range-5
Ayodhya on 03.09.2020, the petitioner took
charge
of
the
post
of
Assistant
Commissioner, Mobile Squad, Barabanki
on 07.09.2020.

3. The Joint Commissioner, Special
Investigation Branch (for short "SIB"),
State Tax, Ayodhya Region-B, Ayodhya on
10.09.2020 issued a direction that the
petitioner should be accompanied with her
subordinate
officer,
Commercial
Tax
Officer, during inspection/checks.

4. On 19.11.2020, the petitioner
intercepted vehicle bearing registration
no.HR38AA-6286
at
Safedabad,
Barabanki. Mobile Squad Unit Barabanki
consists of one Assistant Commissioner and
two Commercial Tax Officers, along with
driver, peon and police staff. The work of
the Mobile Squad is integrated team work.
The Joint Commissioner, SIB, State Tax,
Ayodhya Range-B, Ayodhya had issued
written instructions dated 10.09.2020 that
the
petitioner
should
conduct
road
inspections with complete team.

5. The e-way bill, produced by the
driver of the vehicle no. HR38 AA - 6286,
was dated 18.11.2020. The gross weight of
the vehicle no. HR38AA-6286 was found
to be 15170 kilograms, whereas the bare
weight of the vehicle was 5570 kilograms.
Thus, the net weight of the goods/material
in the vehicle was approximately 9.500
tons, contrary to the wight (7.500 tons)
mentioned in the relevant documents for
transporting the material in the vehicle.

6. According to the petitioner, the
driver of the vehicle again produced the
second invoice, mentioning 2505 kilograms
of old metal scrap in the vehicle, without
any e-way bill for the said material. When
certain discrepancies were found in the
documents, a detailed physical verification
along with complete videography was
required to have been done as per the
settled enforcement norms. The petitioner
had shown that the plastic scrap was 7.00
tons and metal scrap was only to the extent
of 2.500 tons. The petitioner passed
detention order under Section 20 of the
Integrated Goods and Service Tax, 2017
read with Section 129(1) of The Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is
said that on 21.11.2020 itself a demand
notice was issued by the petitioner. The
owner of the goods, Mrs. Sweety Goyal
accepted the liability and paid the tax and
penalty to the tune of Rs.90,250/- on the
same day, just after one minute of physical
verification.

7. A complaint was received from one
Mr. Raj Kumar, Patna, Bihar against the
petitioner in respect of interception of the
vehicle no. HR38AA-6286 on 19.11.2021-.
The
Additional
Commissioner,
SIB,
Commercial
Tax,
Ayodhya
Region,
Ayodhya vide Office Letter No. 624 dated
11.02.2021
directed
the
Joint
Commissioner,
SIB
to
conduct
a
preliminary inquiry in respect of the
allegation made by said Mr. Raj Kumar,
Patna, Bihar after requiring from the said
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant an affidavit in respect of the
allegation and giving opportunity of
hearing.

8. As the complainant had not given
his complete address, mobile number, email id etc, notice sent to him was returned
back and no contact could be established
from the complainant, Mr. Raj Kumar.
However,
the
owner
of
Shri
Raj
Dharmkanta,
where
the
vehicle
was
weighted after it got loaded, told that the
vehicle no. HR38AA-6286 was weighted
on 16.11.2020, without any load on it. The
allegations made in the complaint were
independently enquired into.

9. The driver of the vehicle no.
HR38AA-6286 was Mr. Nagendra Kumar,
who was carrying the material of Khatoo
Shyam Traders. He produced invoice
issued by Khatoo Shyam Traders to Mr.
Mukesh Kumar, Delhi dated 18.11.2020
after the vehicle was intercepted. During
the preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was
issued show-cause-notice to which she
submitted
her
reply.
Thereafter,
the
preliminary
inquiry
report
dated
29.10.2021 was submitted.

10. The finding of the preliminary
technical inquiry report would disclose that
no physical verification of the vehicle in
question was conducted and, no entry was
made regarding physical inspection of
vehicle no. HR38AA-6286. The petitioner
submitted fabricated evidence in respect of
the physical verification of the vehicle,
mentioning wrong facts. The CD in which
videos were made by the petitioner would
disclose that there was no plastic scrap in
the vehicle no. HR38AA-6286, which was
a container and the plastic scrap of 7.00
tons would not have been loaded in the said
container. Whole material was metal scrap.
It was further noticed in the technical
inspection report that according to the
report generated by the petitioner, the
physical inspection of the vehicle was
conducted on 21.11.2020 at around 5.1 p.m.
and soon thereafter, within one minute i.e.
at 5.2 p.m., the owner of the goods made
payment of the tax and penalty. Notice and
order was passed within 28 minutes after
physical
inspection
got
done.
After
technical inquiry report was received, a
Three Members Inquiry Committee was
constituted. The Three Members Inquiry
Committee report dated 28.12.2021 would
disclose the following findings recorded in
it:-

"(1) Physical verification is not done
on the scheduled date.

(2) No record of physical verification
is found in prescribed physical verification
register.

(3) In complete and manipulated
partial physical verification as well as
incomplete videography is done by the
petitioner for the purpose of tax evasion.

(4) No claim for payment for physical
verification.

(5)
The
so-called
incomplete
videography of physical verification does
not show any traces or evidence of plastic
scrap.

(6) The show called incomplete
videography shows exclusively the evidence
of metal scrap.

(7) The owner of loaded truck
deposited the exact amount of tax and
penalty
just
after
one
minute
of
manipulated physical verification, even
before issuing of show-cause-notice/final
assessment order.

(8) The seized truck was a container
vehicle (MCV) in which 7.00 ton plastic
scrap (in bags or jhall) cannot be loaded
because of its huge expanded volume.
5 All. Anjali Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1131

(9) Audio clip recorded in mobile
regarding conversation between the related
parties and departmental officers are also
against the petitioner's integrity."

11. In the preliminary inquiry, it was
concluded that the seized truck/container
no. HR38AA-6286 was loaded with 9.500
tons metal scrap, but the petitioner
conspired with the truck owner and
converted it into 7.500 tons plastic crap and
2.500 tons metal scrap on which the tax and
penalty was imposed and the same was
paid by the owner to the extent of Rs.
90,250/- within one minute of the physical
inspection, however, the show-cause-notice
and final order was passed subsequently.

12. Considering the said two reports
i.e. technical and preliminary, the petitioner
was placed under suspension by the
competent authority vide the impugned
order dated 21.04.2022 to secure the proper
evidence and fair and impartial disciplinary
inquiry against her.

13. As the vehicle in question was carrying
9.500 tons metal scrap, the tax and penalty
would have been to the extent of Rs. 10 Lakhs,
however, it is alleged that with the collusion and
for
extraneous
reason/consideration,
the
petitioner had shown 2.500 tons plastic scrap for
which the owner paid the tax and penalty within
one minute after the inspection. Though the
inquiry was set up after receiving the complaint
from said Mr. Raj Kumar, but the subsequent
technical inquiry report and preliminary inquiry
report would disclose that all the relevant
materials and evidence have been taken into
account, including the reply submitted by the
petitioner, before come to the preliminary
findings against the petitioner.

14. Heard Mr. Vivek Raj Singh,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Avinash
Chandra,
representing
the
petitioner, as well as Mr. Sandeep Sharma,
learned Standing Counsel, representing the
respondents-State Authorities, and gone
through the entire record.

15. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr.
Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate,
submits that no preliminary inquiry could
have been instituted on complaint of Mr.
Raj Kumar, as the same was not supported
by an affidavit, and his whereabouts and
details could not be known later on,
therefore,
the
said
complaint
was
anonymous one. It is stated that the
Government had issued Orders dated
09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 that anonymous
complaint should not be entertained.
However, if the complaint is received from
some important person then it should be
ensured that whether it was actually sent by
the said important person. If anonymous
complaint is received from any other
source, the affidavit of the complainant
should be sought and, he should be directed
to provide evidence in that regard.The
Government
issued
again
Order
on
19.04.2012 that the earlier orders issued by
it on 09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 should be
strictly complied with. It is, therefore,
submitted that since the complaint was
anonymous
one,
without
being
accompanied
by
an
affidavit,
the
preliminary inquiry ought not to have been
set up, and further action, taken pursuant to
the preliminary inquiry, including placing
the petitioner under suspension and setting
up the departmental inquiry, are to be
quashed.

16. The next submission made on
behalf of the petitioner by the learned
Senior Advocate is that the petitioner
passed order imposing tax and penalty of
Rs.90,250/- in exercise of quasi-judicial
1132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
power. The said order has not been
challenged in the revision or appeal and the
same has attained finality, therefore, the
departmental proceedings cannot be set in
motion on the basis of the said quasijudicial order dated 21.11.2020. The
learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the
petitioner,
places
reliance
upon
the
following cases:-

1. (1993) 2 SCC 56 (Union of India
and others Vs. K.K. Dhawan);

2. (1999)7 SCC 409 (Zunjarrao
Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India and
others);

3. (2006 5 SCC 680 (Union of India
and others Vs. Duli Chand);

4. (2007) 4 SCC 247 (Ramesh
Chander Singh Vs. High Court of
Allahabad and another); and

5. (2019) 10 SCC 640 (Krishna
Prasad Verma (Dead) through Legal
Representatives Vs. State of Bihar and
others)

17. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep
Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, submits
that the suspension order dated 21.04.2023
as well as disciplinary proceedings initiated
are based on preliminary inquiry report and
substantial evidence collected regarding
misconduct and malafide exercise of power
by the petitioner. If some complaint is
received
regarding
misconduct
of
a
Government servant though it is not
supported by an affidavit, the Department
is not barred to independently enquire into
the matter of grave misconduct such as
committed by the petitioner. It is submitted
that
the
Government
Orders
dated
09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 define general
guidelines and norms related to general
complaint disposal mechanism. If the
allegations
have
been
independently
enquired into, and it has been found that the
Government servant prima facie has
committed
grave
misconduct,
the
Department is not barred from initiating the
departmental
proceedings
for
such
misconduct against a Government servant.
It is further stated that if a Government
servant,
functioning
as
quasi-judicial
authority, passes an order in malafide
exercise of the power, for extraneous
consideration, and such allegations have
been prima faice found to be correct in the
preliminary
inquiry,
the
departmental
proceedings are to be instituted against
such an employee, and he/she cannot get
away by saying that the order was passed
by him/her in exercise of quasi-judicial
power, and since the same has not been
challenged in revision or appeal, no
disciplinary proceedings can be instituted
against him/her.

18. I have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned Senior Advocate,
on behalf of the petitioner, as well as
learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the
respondents.

19. Before proceeding with the merit
of the case, some developments, which
have taken place in the present case, are
required to be taken note of, which are as
follows:-

(i) When this writ petition was
instituted, the coordinate Bench passed an
interim order on 28.11.2022 to the extent
that till the next date of listing, operation
and effect of the impugned order dated
21.04.2022 would remain stayed. However,
the respondents were given liberty to
proceed with the disciplinary proceedings,
without being influenced by the findings
recorded in the interim order dated
28.11.2022. The respondents were also
given liberty to post the petitioner at any
5 All. Anjali Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1133
place, considering the fact that disciplinary
proceedings are pending against her.

(ii) The petitioner challenged the said
interim order by filing intra-Court Special
Appeal Defective No. 40 of 2023, which
was allowed by the Division Bench vide
judgment and order dated 01.02.2023,
setting-aside the interim order dated
28.11.2022 whereby the coordinate Bench
had given liberty to the respondents to
proceed with the disciplinary proceedings,
without being influenced by the findings
recorded in the interim order dated
28.11.2022 as well as the liberty to the
respondents to post the petitioner at any
place, considering the fact that the
disciplinary proceedings were pending
against her. Paras 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the
judgment and order dated 01.02.2023
passed by the Division Bench in intraCourt Special Appeal Defective No. 40 of
2023 are extracted herein below:-

"(26) The disciplinary proceedings
against the appellant have been initiated
merely because the assessee has deposited
the penalty within a very short span of time
which raised a suspicion with regard to the
penalty order passed by the appellant. In
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically
held that the disciplinary proceedings
against an officer cannot take place on
information, which is vague and indefinite
and suspicion has no role to play in such
matters when the department has taken a
conscious decision not to challenge the
order passed by the appellant and has
allowed the same to attain finality. Prima
facie, it appears at this stage that the
disciplinary proceedings cannot be drawn
against the appellant to punish her for
having passed the aforesaid order.

(27)
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussion, we are of the view that the
respondents ought not to have been given
liberty to proceed with the disciplinary
proceedings against the appellant and to
post her anywhere considering the facts
that the disciplinary proceedings are
pending against her.

(28) Accordingly, the instant special
appeal is allowed. The order dated
28.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single
Judge in Writ-A No. 7888 of 2022 : Anjali
Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, so
far as it provides that "Respondents are at
liberty to proceed with the disciplinary
proceedings, without being influenced by
the findings recorded in this order. The
respondents are also at liberty to post the
petitioner at any place, considering the fact
that disciplinary proceedings are pending
against her" is hereby set-aside.

(29) It is clarified that while deciding
the case on merits, Hon'ble Single Judge
shall not be guided or influence by any
observations made hereinabove, which
have been made only for the purposes of
disposal of the instant appeal.

(iii) The State
Government had
challenged the said order before the
Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to
Appeal No.9042 of 2023, and the Supreme
Court has passed the following order on
18.05.2023 :-

"Issue notice.

Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel
appearing on caveat accepts notice on
behalf of the sole respondent.

Respondent may file counter affidavit
within six weeks. Petitioner will have two
weeks' time thereafter to file rejoinder
affidavit.

As an interim measure, it is provided
that the disciplinary proceedings against
the respondent may continue, however, no
1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
final decision would be taken without leave
of this Court.

We further request the learned Single
Judge of the High Court to decide the writ
petition expeditiously, subject to other
matters on Board.

It goes without saying that parties
shall co-operate in the hearing of the writ
petition.

List the matter after expiry of ten
weeks."

(iv) The petitioner has been issued the
charge-sheet on 06.07.2022. The petitioner,
with the purposes of delaying the enquiry
against
her,
had
been
demanding
documents which have not been cited in the
charge-sheet as evidence. The petitioner
has written various letters and all the
evidence and material, relied on by the
Department in support of the charge-sheet,
have been supplied to the petitioner. The
petitioner had made inspection of the
documents, which were permitted to her,
but the facts, as narrated in the writ petition
itself, would disclose that every time effort
was made by the petitioner, to delay the
proceedings, and in the meantime, she
could secure the interim order dated
28.11.2022, and the order dated 01.02.2023
passed by the Division Bench.

20. If a complaint is received against
an employee for grave misconduct without
affidavit, the said complaint would not
debar the Department to look at the
allegation independently and conduct a
preliminary inquiry with respect to the
same. In the present case, the technical
report as well as preliminary inquiry report
would suggest the grave misconduct by the
petitioner, as pointed out above. It is not the
case of the petitioner that except for
anonymous complaint, there is no evidence
against the petitioner. The petitioner was
fully associated with during conduct of
preliminary
inquiry,
and
the
Three
Members Committee has submitted a report
regarding
gross
misconduct
of
the
petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that
there is no violation of the Government
Orders dated 09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997,
as contended by the learned Senior
Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. The
disciplinary
proceedings
have
been
initiated against the petitioner on the basis
of the departmental preliminary inquiry
report, and not on the basis of the
complaint and, therefore, there is no
illegality in initiation of the departmental
proceedings against the petitioner. If a
Government servant, exercising quasijudicial function, passes an order, which is
illegal,
with
malafide
intention,
for
extraneous purposes, and where there is
corruption involved, the Department is not
precluded to proceed with the disciplinary
proceedings against such an employee, if
the order has not been challenged in
revision/appeal. The judgments, cited by
the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of
the petitioner, are in respect of judicial
officers where no such finding in the
preliminary inquiry regarding extraneous
consideration was recorded and, therefore,
those judgments have no bearing in the
facts of the present case.

21. The petitioner has been placed
under suspension vide impugned order
dated 21.04.2022. The suspension does not
amount to punishment but an employee is
placed
under
suspension
to
hold
disciplinary
inquiry
against
such
an
employee in a free, fair and impartial
manner. When allegation against the
delinquent employee are serious regarding
his/her misconduct, the suspension order
cannot be said to be invalid. Under Rule-7
of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant
5 All. Jagdamba Singh Vs. D.D.C., Ayodhya & Ors.
1135
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, there
is power of placing an employee under
suspension, and I am of the view that the
power has been exercised correctly for
valid and cogent reasons for placing the
petitioner under suspension.

22. In view thereof, I find no merit
and substance in the present petition, which
is hereby dismissed. It is, however,
provided that the Department should
proceed with the departmental inquiry
expeditiously and conclude the same,
preferably within a period of four months,
subject to full cooperation by the petitioner.
Any observation, made herein above,
would not influence the inquiry officer,
who
should
conduct
the
inquiry
independently and record his finding based
on the evidence.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1135
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ-B No. 295 of 2023

Jagadamba Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C., Ayodhya & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudhary, Mohammad
Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ankit Pande, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

A. Consolidation Law - UP Consolidation
of Holding Act, 1953 - Section 48 - Power
of Revision - Scope - About 43 age of
litigation - Relevance - Deputy Director of
Consolidation, while deciding the revision,
remanded the matter - Validity challenged
- No evidence was required to be adduced
in the matter - Effect - Held, taking note
of the power of DDC and the age of
litigation between the parties, the High
Court set aside the remand order and
directed the DDC to consider and decide
all the issues including the issue(s) related
to applicability of Section 11-A and 49 of
the Act of 1953. (Para 17, 18 and 19)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. WRIT B No. 108 of 2023; Angad Pratap Singh
& ors. Vs Deputy Director Consolidation & ors.
decided on 10.02.2023

2. Prabhu Dayal Vs D.D.C. & anr.; 2018 (140)
RD 460 (All.)

3. Musuttu Vs D.D.C. & ors.; 2018(140) RD 505 (All.)

4. Dhooram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Bagpat; 2006 (100) RD 505 (H.C.)

5. Smt.Anju Rajpal & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2023 (41) LCD 626

6. Bechan Pandey & ors. Vs Dulhin Janki Devi;
AIR 1976 SC 866

7. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (Dead) through L.R. Vs
Devendra Prasad Jaiswal; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 146,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Mohammad Arif Khan,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Prabhakar
Vardhan
Chaudhary
and
Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar
Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for
the respondent No. 1 and Sri R.S. Pandey,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing for the caveator.

2. The order impugned in this petition
dated 23.03.2023 passed by the respondent