# Anuj Singh v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 209
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-27
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 14919 of 2021
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anuj-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-50095
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226-Writ petition challenging order
imposing punishment of dismissal from
service and the appellate order modifying
the dismissal of service to compulsory
retirement- Inquiry Officer proceeded to
hold the charges proved against the
petitioner
based
upon
virtually
no
evidence-Disciplinary authority while has
not
even
dealt
with
any
of
the
submissions made by the petitioner-
Appellate authority completely erred in
holding the petitioner guilty by taking
recourse to the dictionary meaning of the
word
'supervise'
and
'to
supervise'
completely
ignoring
the
office
memorandums which specified the nature
of duties in respect of charges leveled-
None of the witnesses either before the
Inquiry Officer or in any of the documents
given alongwith the charge-sheet, in any
way incarcerate the petitioner with regard
to not following any of the duties-Only
charge leveled and established was that
the petitioner took 14 days in forwarding
the
report
of
the
unauthorized
construction to the Chief Executive Officer
which can in the worst case be called as
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
'negligence' and does not qualify to be a
'misconduct' warranting such extreme
punishment as
has
been imposed
-
Punishment order set aside with direction
to reinSt. the petitioner in the services
alongwith all consequential benefits on
the post on which he was working at the
time of removal. (Para 90, 91, 92, 93, 94)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,879 of 64,808. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39879 for what follows._

4 All. Anuj Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
209
special examination was to be conducted
for these contractual employees only,
which was allowed by the Delhi High
Court. However, on appeal, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court finding fault in the said
process in regularising the contractual
employee held in paragraph-12 of the
judgment passed in University of Delhi Vs
Delhi University Contract Employees
Union & Ors.: 2021 SCC Online SC 256,
as follows :-

12. It is true that, as on the day
when the judgment in Umadevi was
delivered by this Court, the contract
employees had put in just about 3 to 4
years of service. But, as of now, most of
them have completed more than 10 years of
service on contract basis. Though the
benefit of regularization cannot be granted,
a window of opportunity must be given to
them to compete with the available talent
through public advertisement. A separate
and exclusive test meant only for the
contract employees will not be an answer
as that would confine the zone of
consideration
to
contract
employees
themselves. The modality suggested by the
University, on the other hand, will give
them adequate chance and benefit to
appear in the ensuing selection."

 (Emphasis Supplied)

43. Thus, before parting with the
records, this Court observes that in the
event,
the
said
post
or
any
post
commensurate to the qualification and skill
as currently borne by the petitioner is
advertised, the respondents may allow the
petitioner to participate in the regular
selection process by relaxing her age as
one-time measure in the interest of justice.

44. In the facts of the present case,
there shall be no order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 209
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-A No. 14919 of 2021

Anuj Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajat Gangwar, Ashmita Singh, Gaurav
Mehrotra, Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Ajay Kumar Singh, Satish Kumar Rai

Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226-Writ petition challenging order
imposing punishment of dismissal from
service and the appellate order modifying
the dismissal of service to compulsory
retirement- Inquiry Officer proceeded to
hold the charges proved against the
petitioner
based
upon
virtually
no
evidence-Disciplinary authority while has
not
even
dealt
with
any
of
the
submissions made by the petitioner-
Appellate authority completely erred in
holding the petitioner guilty by taking
recourse to the dictionary meaning of the
word
'supervise'
and
'to
supervise'
completely
ignoring
the
office
memorandums which specified the nature
of duties in respect of charges leveled-
None of the witnesses either before the
Inquiry Officer or in any of the documents
given alongwith the charge-sheet, in any
way incarcerate the petitioner with regard
to not following any of the duties-Only
charge leveled and established was that
the petitioner took 14 days in forwarding
the
report
of
the
unauthorized
construction to the Chief Executive Officer
which can in the worst case be called as
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
'negligence' and does not qualify to be a
'misconduct' warranting such extreme
punishment as
has
been imposed
-
Punishment order set aside with direction
to reinSt. the petitioner in the services
alongwith all consequential benefits on
the post on which he was working at the
time of removal. (Para 90, 91, 92, 93, 94)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Present petition has been filed
challenging the Punishment Order No.85
dated 14.08.2019 passed by Respondent
No.2,
Cantonment
Board
Resolution
No.188
dated
14.08.2019
passed
by
Respondent
No.3
imposing
a
major
punishment of dismissal from service as
well
as
the
appellate
order
dated
01.06.2021 passed by Respondent No.4
modifying the dismissal of service to
compulsory retirement (Annexure - 29).

2. The facts, in brief, are that the
petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Engineer in the Cantonment Board and was
promoted to the post of Cantonment
Executive Engineer on 17.08.2002. The
petitioner claims that during his service
tenure, various awards and commendation
certificates were received by the petitioner.
It is brought on record that on 27.08.2007,
the Cantonment Board, Meerut resolved
that the building plan showing cinema hall
and shops was sanctioned in the year 1957
and thus, any fresh sanction for a similar
venture will not amount to change of
purpose.

3. The entire dispute started with
respect of Bungalow No.167, Chappel
Street Meerut Cantt. Meerut. The Ministry
of Defense sought a reply in respect of the
resolution passed by the Cantonment
Board, Meerut on 27.08.2007 as to why the
decision of the Board sanctioning the
building may not be modified or revoked.
The Cantonment Board vide Resolution
No.93 dated 02.03.2009, in view of the
notices issued by the Ministry of Defense,
resolved
that
the
decision
of
the
government
setting
aside
Resolution
No.330 dated 04.01.2008 be communicated
to the owner of the Bungalow No.167 and
further directions were issued that the Chief
Executive Officer should ensure that no
unauthorised constructions takes place. The
said resolution of the Board was challenged
before the Delhi High Court in Writ
Petition (C) No.1808 of 2011 (Rajesh
Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors.).
Learned Single Judge vide order dated
26.07.2011 restored the Cantonment Board
Resolution No.330 dated 04.01.2008 and
passed orders for approving the building
sanction plan in respect of the said
Bungalow No.167. However, in respect of
the same very bungalow, a letter was
written
by
the
General
Officer
Commanding-in-Chief granting approval to
the President, Cantonment Board to initiate
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
petitioner as well as one Mr. Piyush
Gautam; the said sanction in on record as
Annexure - 2.

4. In terms of the approval granted,
the Board Resolution No.91 was passed
initiating disciplinary proceeding against
the petitioner on 26.11.2013. The petitioner
challenged the said Resolution No.91 dated
226.11.2013 by filing Writ - A No.70147
of 2013 (Anuj Singh v. Union of India &
Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed
off by the Allahabad High Court vide order
dated 20.12.2013 directing that a chargesheet be issued to the petitioner and
disciplinary proceeding be finalised in
accordance with law, preferably within a
4 All. Anuj Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
211
period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the order
subject to full cooperation by the petitioner.

5. On 20.12.2013, a charge-sheet was
served upon the petitioner levelling as
many as seven charges against the
petitioner; the charge-sheet is on record as
Annexure - 4. In the said charge-sheet,
apart
from
the
allegations
levelled
pertaining to Bungalow No.167, six other
charges were also levelled against the
petitioner. On 27.01.2014, the petitioner
filed a reply to the charge-sheet denying the
charges levelled against the petitioner.
Similar to the petitioner, charge-sheets
were also issued to one Piyush Gautam,
A.E. and K.A. Gupta, J.E. All the seven
charges as levelled against the petitioner
are being reproduced herein below:

"STATEMENT
OF
IMPUTATION
OF
MISCONDUCT/ARTICLE OF CHARGE
FRAMED
AGAINST
SHRI
ANUJ
SINGH,
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER,
CANTT BOARD MEERUT.

Article of Charge I:-

Shri Anuj Singh while working as
Executive Engineer and illegally facilitated
sanctioning of a building plan for cinema
theatre and several shops in respect of B.
No. 167, Chappel Street, Meerut Cantt on
several numbers of defence land described
in the G.L.R. for residential purpose as
well as open plots meant for passage,
amalgamating land under several separate
survey numbers as well as facilitated
change of purpose without obtaining
sanction of the Govt of India. There was
difference in area too as per report dated
30.07.2004 submitted by him in respect of
Sy. No. 357/1742 thus by giving misleading
report on docket form of building plan to
the
Cantonment
Board,
surruptiously
allowed of passing of the building plan for
cinema
building
vide
Cantt
Board
Resolution No. 330 dated 04.01.2008. The
Govt of India, Ministry of Defence set aside
the above decision of the Board holding
that the action of the Board is against the
interest of the Govt of India being old grant
property. The HOR challenged the decision
of the Govt before the Hon'ble High Court
of Delh where the Govt of India/Cantt
Board lost the case. Thus the proprietory
interest of the Govt and the policy
instructions has been jeopardized due to
his incorrect/illegal report.

This action of Shri Anuj Singh
was with the intent and motive to cause
wrongful gain/benefit to the applicant HOR
and causing loss to the Govt of India, as
well as defeating the provisions of
Cantonments Act & Land Policy of the
Govt of India and thus amounts to gross
misconduct which is violative of Rules 3 (1)
(i) and 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,
1964.

Article of Charge II:-

Shri Anuj Singh while working as
Executive Engineer facilitated illegal &
unauthorized construction of hotel and
resort in old grant residential bungalow
No. 22-B, Boundary Road, Meerut Cantt
comprising survey No. 302 in violation of
Old Grant terms under Governor General's
order No. 179 dated 12.09.1836 and the
Govt's land policy issued by the Ministry of
Defence on 24.03.2012 the unauthorized
construction were sealed under orders of
the CEO u/s 249 of CA, 2006. Inspite of
this fact the unauthorized construction of
hotel/resort in the said bungalow continued
unabated and completed. After lodging FIR
on 04.07.2012 and 19.07.2012 with Police
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Station Lal Kurti no action for re-seal of
the premises and to stop unauthorized
construction were taken by him. In fact all
the exercise of getting notices issued and
sealing was just an eye wash. In August
2013 effective action was taken by the CEO
personally in the matter and got stopped
the functions in the premises as well as
cancellation of application under Sarai Act
moved by the offenders.

Thus Shri Anuj Singh failed to
perform his dutics as CEE of the Board by
not
taking
any
fruitfull
&
effective
action/initiative to stop the unauthorized
construction as well as to remove the
unauthorized constructions at initial stage.
This action of Shri Anuj Singh was with the
Intent and motive to cause wrongful
gain/benefit to the applicant and loss to the
Govt of India as well defeating the
provisions of Cantonments Act and Land
Policy of the Govt of India and thus
amounts to gross misconduct which is
violative of Rules 3 (1) (i) and 3 (1) (ii) of
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article of Charge III:-

Shri Anuj Singh while working as
Executive Engineer and during the period
15.02.1995 to Jan 2012 illegally facilitated
illegal construction in building No. 340 AC, Rangsaz Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, Meerut
Cantt comprising survey No. 357/6 in
violation of order dated 08.05.2001 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad as
well as order dated 29.11.2002 passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court restraining
construction over and above the ground
floor raised unauthorisedly i.e. no further
unauthorized construction on first floor
was permitted by the High Court/Supreme
Court of India, but inspite of that a report
of construction of 14 pillers on first floor
only was submitted by him on which order
dated 14.12.2001 was passed by the Estate
Officer for demolition but on inspection in
August 2013 it is found that entire first
floor has been completely constructed
during past years. But he did not submit
any report of unauthorized constructions
after submitting report of 14 pillers having
an intention of facilitating the builder and
in lieu of getting undue benefit and
gratification for himself.

This action of Shri Anuj Singh
was with the intent and motive to cause
wrongful gain/benefit to the applicant and
loss to the Govt of India as well defeating
the provisions of Cantonments Act and
Land Policy of the Govt of India which
amounts to gross misconduct which is
violative of Rules 3 (1) (i) and 3 (1)(ii) of
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article of Charge IV:-

Shri Anuj Singh while working as
Executive Engineer and during the period
15.02.1995 to Nov 2013 illegally facilitated
the builders to construct huge unauthorized
constructions in bungalow No. 198, 199,
202, 209, 210-A, 210-B, 210- C, 213, 220,
222, 223, 227, 233 West End Road, 176,
340, Rangsaz Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, 193
Naya Bazar, 182, 184, 185, 185/A, 187,
188 and 190, Abu Lane, 305 Circular
Road, 182/183 Dalmandi Sadar Bazar and
other illegal constructions for commercial
exploitation as well as committing change
of purpose from residential to commercial
in several parts of Cantt area. It is notable
that such construction do not match with
the construction on ground and the
construction shown in reports submitted to
the office. Even no complete report that
unauthorized
constructions
have
been
submitted though it had been stated in
reports that work was going on at site.
Moreover, no effective steps have been
4 All. Anuj Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
213
taken
to
prevent
unauthorized
constructions as provided under the law i.e.
confiscation of building material and
sealing
of
unauthorized
construction.
Further it is severe negligence in duty that
even after dismissal of the appeals in
unauthorized constructions by the GOC-inC as well as the Director, DE he has not
initiated appropriate action within the
stipulated time pericd for demolition of the
unauthorized constructions involved in
appeals. It evidently shows involvement in
not taking action for demolition of such
unauthorized constructions.

This action of Shri Anuj Singh
was with the intent and motive to cause
wrongful
gain/benefit
to
the
builders/offenders and loss to the Govt of
India as well defeating the provisions of
Cantonments Act and Land Policy of the
Govt of India and thus amounts to gross
misconduct which is violative of Rules 3(1)
(i) and 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,
1964.

Article of Charge V:-

Shri Anuj Singh while working as
Executive Engineer illegally facilitated to
continue illegally erected mobile tower in
bungalow No. 177-177/A Chappel street,
Meerut Cantt inspite of removal order
passed by the Estate Officer vide order
dated 06.03.2012 and dismissal of Writ
petition No. 56971 of 2012 by the Hon'ble
High Court, Allahabad on 09.11.2012 till
when the offender obtained stay order on
12.12.2012
in
special
appeal
before
Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, in breach
of instructions issued by the Govt of India,
Ministry of Defence as well jeopardizing
the
security
of
the
Defence/Army
installations. As well as illegally facilitated
installation of illegal mobile towers in
Cantt area in RA' Bazar and Rangsaz
Mohalla, Sadar Bazar" Meerut Cantt
during the period of temporary absence of
CEO from the station between 25.09.2013
and 06.10.2013 in breach of instructions
issued by the Govt of India, Ministry of
Defence as well jeopardizing the security of
the
Defence/Army
installation:
under
Meerut Cantt inspite of express instructions
issued by the competent authority i.e. CEO
and he deliberately mislead the competent
authority by giving false report of removal
of illegal towers by him and facilitated
them to approach the Court by giving
sufficient time while not taking prompt
action on the instructions given to him by
the competent authority.

This action of Shri Anuj Singh
was with the intent and motive to cause
wrongful, gain/benefit to the applicant and
loss to the Govt of India as well defeating
the provisions of Cantonments Act and
Policy of the Govt of India and thus
amounts to gross misconduct which is
violative of Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article of Charge VI:-

Shri Anuj Singh while working as
Executive Engineer and during the period
15.02.1995 to Nov 2013 illegally facilitated
to continue illegal occupation by way of
high class fertile cultivation since long
back on approximately 15 acres out of
20.997 acres 'C' class land situated at
Trenching ground comprising GLR Sy. No.
307/1 belonging to and vested in the
Cantonment Board, Meerut. Earlier being
the AE and after that promoted/upgraded
to CEE the illegal occupation & cultivation
was neither reported by him to the CEO/CB
nor he tried to get the land vacated from
illegal cultivation. He did not give any heed
to the direction of the CEO by not erecting
boundary pillers for 3-4 months since July
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2013 inspite of repeated instructions of the
CEO after joint survey and demarcation of
boundaries
between
05.07.2013
to
10.07.2013 carried out in the presence of
CEO's rep and DEO representatives
Ultimately, the land has been got vacated
by the CEO was informed secretly from
reliable sources that the illegal occupant
has arranged all legal process to get stay
from the court of law. During the period of
illegal occupation of approx 20 years
illegal gain of more than one crore was
awarded to the illegal occupant/occupants.

Thus Shri Anuj Singh failed to
perform his duties with undoubtful integrity
by not reporting the illegal occupation and
cultivation over approx 15 acres of 'C'
class land as well as by not making any
effort to get the subject land vacated. This
action of Shri Anuj Singh was with the
intent and motive to cause wrongful
gain/benefit to the illegal occupants and
loss to the Govt of India/Cantt Board and
thus amounts to gross misconduct which is
violative of Rules 3 (1) (i) and 3 (1) (ii) of
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article of Charge VII:-

Shri Anuj Singh while working as
Executive Engineer facilitated issuance of
permission for cutting of total 14 green and
dry trees in favour of one Shri Rajeev
Kumar on his application dated 13.07.2012
and 30.10.2012 in old grant residential
bungalow No. 195/1, Delhi Road, Meerut
Cantt comprising survey No. 357/1758.
Such act on the part of Shri Anuj Singh was
totally illegal being in favour of a person.
who is not recorded holder of occupancy
rights in GLR maintained by the Cantt
Board which is in violation of Old Grant
terms under Governor General's order No.
179 dated 12.09.1836 and the Govt's land
policy issued by the Ministry of Defence.
For such illegal act he submitted incorrect
report and recommendation in June 2013
for cutting of trees.

Thus Shri Anuj Singh failed to
perform his duties as CEE of the Board by
not taking any fruitful and effective
action/initiative
to
stop
unauthorized
construction as well as to remove the
unauthorized construction at initial stage.
This action of Shri Anuj Singh was with the
intent and motive to cause wrongful
gain/benefit to the applicant and loss to the
Govt of India as well defeating the
provisions of Cantonment Act and Land
Policy of the Govt of India and thus
amounts to gross misconduct which is
violative of Rules 3(1) (i) and 3(1)(ii) of
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS BY
WHICH THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE
FRAMED
AGAINST
SHRI
ANUJ
SINGH,
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER,
CANTT
BOARD,
MEERUT
IS
PROPOSED TO BE SUSTAINED.

Article of Charge No. 1:-

(i)
CBR
No.
330
dated
04.01.2008.

(ii) Building application dated 07
Dec 2007 of Shri RK Aggarwal

(iii) Cantt Board Meerut letter
No. 93/167/L/511 dated 20.03.2006.

(iv) HQ Central Command letter
No.
260506/Q3B
dated
18.01.2000
enclosing.
MoD
ID
No.
718/20/L/DE/97/1517/DO(V)/D/(L)
dated
13.12.1999.

(V)
DG
DE
letter
No.
718/20/L/DE/97 dated 17.05.2000.

(vi) Dte DE, CC, Lucknow letter
No. 67147/LC2/2 dated 27.12.2006.

(vii) Cantt Board Meerut letter
No. 93/167/L/425 dated 12.03.2007.
4 All. Anuj Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
215

(viii) Govt of India, Ministry of
Defence letter No. 11013/1/87/D(Lands)
Vol-I dated 09.02.1995.

(ix) Scrutiny report of Cantt
Board Meerut staff as endorsed on the
Building Application of Shri RK Aggarwal.

(x) Mutation application dated
14.01.2003.

(xi)
Scrutiny
report
dated
30.07.2004 & 14.12.2004 on the mutation
application dated 14.01.2003.

(xii) Ministry of Defence letter
No.
10(68)/2008/D(Q&C)
dated
21.11.2008.

(xiii) Ministry of Defence letter
No.
10
(68)/2008/D(Q&C)
dated
20.02.2009.

(xiv) Building plan sanctioned by
the Cantt Board vide CBR No. 330 dated
04.01.2008 of B. No. 167, Chappel Street,
Meerut and subsequently set aside by Govt
of India vide Ministry of Defence Order
No.
10
(68)/2008/D(Q&C)
dated
20.02.2009.

(xv)
CBR
No.
227
dated
27.08.2007.

(xvi) GLR Extract of Sy No.
357/1742,
357/1742/1,
357/1742/2,
357/1742/3,
357/1742/4,
357/1742/5,
357/1742/6, 357/1742/7 & 357/1742/8.

(xvii) GLR Plan of Sy No.
357/1742.

(xviii) Cantonment Board, Meerut
Bye Laws.

(xix) Cantonments Act, 2006
relevant section 234 & 235.

(xx)
Application
dated
22.02.2006 and 07.05.2007 of Shri RK
Aggarwal.

(xxi)
DG
DE
letter
No.
707/1/L/DE/CC/1/2007 dated 01.03.2007.

Article of Charge No. II:-

(i) GLR extract of bungalow No.
22-B, Boundary Road.

(ii) Report dated 14.10.2011
regarding detection of u/a construction.

(iii) Report dated 29.11.2011
regarding detection of u/a construction.

(iv) Report dated 31.01.2012
regarding detection of u/a construction.

(v) Report dated 06.03.2012
regarding detection of u/a construction.

(vi) Report dated 22.05.2013
regarding detection of u/a construction.

(vii) Notice u/s 248 bearing No.
Misc/4007/E7A
dated
23.11.2011
regarding demolition of u/a construction.

(viii) Notice u/s 248 bearing No.
Misc/4190/E7A
dated
22.12.2011
regarding demolition of u/a construction.

(ix) Notice u/s 248 bearing No.
93/22-B/524/E7A
dated
28.03.2012
regarding demolition of u/a construction.

(x) Notice u/s 248 bearing No.
Misc/695/E7A dated 01.05.2012 regarding
demolition of u/a construction.

(xi) Notice u/s 248 bearing No.
MCB/Bldg/Engg/190
dated
22.06.2013
regarding demolition of u/a construction.

(xii)
Copy
of
letter
No.
Misc/G/943 dated 25.09.2013.

(xiii) Letter No. 93/22-B/L/348
dated 09.07.2013.

(xiv)
Letter
No.
93/22/L/569
dated 12.08.2013.

(xv) Letter No. 93/22/L/613 dated
19.08.2013.

(xvi) Order u/s 249 passed by the
CEO bearing No. Misc/xxx/E7A dated
23.03.2012.

(xvii) Copy of general CBR dated
18.06.2012.

(xviii) Copy of report dated
04.07.2012 & FIR dated 04.07.2012.

(xix)
Copy
of
report
dated
18.07.2012& FIR dated 19.07.2012.
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(xx) Criminal writ Petition No.
8346 of 2013, Cantt Board Meerut V/s
Pankaj Jolly & others.

Article of Charge No. III:-

(i) 1st report of u/a constructions
dated 30.11.2000 in premises No. 340 A-C,
Rangsaz Moh.

(ii)
II
nd
report
of
u/a
constructions dated 07.12.2000 in premises
No. 340 A-C, Rangsaz Moh.

(iii) Order dated 13.12.2000
regarding sealing passed by the Estate
Officer.

(iv) Order dated 28.04.2001
passed by ADJ Meerut.

(v)
Order
dated
08.05.2001
passed by Hon'ble High Court passed in
W.P. No. 17434 of 2001.

(vi) Order dated 14.12.2001
passed by the Estate Officer for demolition.

(vii) Order dated 03.02.2003
passed by Distt Judge Meerut in M.A. No.
314 and 315 of 2001.

(viii) Order dated 28.04.2001
passed by the Hon'ble High Court,
Allahabad in Civil Misc Writ Petition No.
17434 of 2001, Rajiv Anand V/s Estate
Officer & another.

(ix) Order dated 29.11.2012
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP (C) No. 22499 of 2001.

(x)
Detection
report
dated
04.03.2005 of 1st floor containing 14
pillars.

(xi) Order dated 20.09.2006
passed by the Estate Officer for demolition.

Article of Charge No. IV:-

(i) Detection reports (as per
Appendix-A) of unauthorized constructions
in respect of bungalow No. 198, 199, 202,
209, 210-A, 210-B, 210-C, 213, 220, 222,
223, 227, 233 West End Road, 176 Rangsaz
Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, 193 Naya Bazar,
182, 184, 185, 185/A, 187, 188, 190, Abu
Lane, 22-Boundry Road & 305, Circular
Road.

(ii)
Report
of
Advocate
Commissioner passed by the Hon'ble High
Court, Allahabad in Contempt Petition No.
380 of 2001, Executive Officer V/s Pushpa
Devi & Others.

(iii) Survey map prepared by the
Advocate Commissioner in respect of u/s
constructions in bungalow No. 210-B, West
End Road.

(iv) Demolition orders (as per
Appendix-B & C) passed by the GOC-in-
C/Director DE w.e.f 1995 till date.

(v) Application dated 20.07.2013
from Shri S.D. Tripathi for repair of house
no.182/183 Sadar Dalmandi.

(vi) Application dated 02.08.2013
from Smt Maya Devi for repair of house no.
182/183 Sadar Dalmandi.

(vii)
Detection
report
dated
24.10.2013 in r/o house no. 182/183
Dalmanci Sadar.

(viii) Copy of GLR extract in r/o
house no. 182/183 Dalmandi Sadar.

Article of Charge No. V:-

(i) GLR extract of B. No. 177177/A, Chappel Street, Meerut Cantt.

(ii) Detection report regarding
u/a mobile tower.

(iii) Order dated 06.03.2012
passed by the Estate Officer for removal of
tower.

(iv) Order dated 16.10.2012
passed by the District Judge, Meerut.

(v)
Order
dated
09.11.2012
passed by the Hon'ble High Court,
Allahabad.

(vi) Office note/order of CEO
dated 07.12.2012.
4 All. Anuj Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
217

(vii) Order dated 12.12.2012
passed by the Hon'ble High Court,
Allahabad.

(viii) Policy instructions dated
12.09.2008 regarding mobile towers issued
by the Min of Defence.

(ix) GLR extract of bungalow No.
292, RA Bazar.

(x) GLR extract of house No. 32,
32/A, Rangsaz Mohalla, Sadar, Meerut
Cantt.

(xi) Copy of plaint in suit No.
1234
of
2013,
Himanshu
Jain
V/s
Cantonmen: Board, in the Court of Civil
Judge (Sr. Div.) Meerut.

(xii) Copy of plaint in suit No.
1233
of
2013,
Manjeet
Singh
V/s
Cantonment Board, in the Court of Civil
Judge (Sr. Div.) Meerut.

(xiii)
Copy of
writ petition
No.64191 of 2013, Himanshu Jain V/s
Cantonment Board and others.

(xiv)
Copy
of
writ
petition
No.64900 of 2013, Manjeet Singh V/s
Cantonment Board and others.

(xv) Copy of detection report
dated 09.10.2013 regarding mobile tower
in B. No. 292, RA Bazar.

(xvi) Copy of detection report
dated 09.10.2013 regarding mobile tower
in H No. 32, 32/A, Rangsaz Mohalla, Sadar
Bazar, Meerut Cantt.

Article of Charge No. VI:-

(i) GLR extract 'C' class land of
trenching ground of Cantt Board.

(ii) Report dated 01.07.2013 by
Sanitary Supdt and Sanitary Inspector.

(iii) Report dated 10.07.2013 of
Joint survey and demarcation.

(iv) Order of the CEO dated
18.07.2013 for erecting pillars.

(v) Estimate dated 05.04.2005
and sketch of trenching ground.

(vi) Calculation sheet, site plan of
trenching
ground
and
comparative
statement dated 10.12.2010.

(vii)
Comparative
statement
dated 21.02.2011.

Article of Charge No. VII:-

(i) Copy of GLR of bungalow No.
195, Delhi Road, Meerut Cantt.

(ii) Application dated 13.07.2012
from Rajeev Kumar for cutting trees.

(iii) Another application dated
03.10.2012 from Rajeev Kumar for cutting
trees.

(iv)
Report
21.06.2013
recommending issue of permission.

(v) ID Note No. 66 dated
22.06.2013 of the CEO.

(vi) ID Note No. 75 dated
11.07.2013 of the CEO.

(vii) Letter No. R/108/Sale of
Tree/269 dated 22.07.2013.

(viii) Show Cause letter No.
Vividh/G/22 dated 31.08.2013.

(ix) Reply to show cause dated
06.09.2013 received from Shri Anuj Singh."

6. During the pendency of the
proceedings, the judgment and order of the
Delhi High Court dated 26.07.2011 was
challenged by filing L.P.A. No.1051 of
2011. The Division Bench rejected the
appeal filed by the Union of India and
upheld the order dated 26.07.2011. In the
meanwhile, as steps were being taken for
demolition of constructions, unfortunately
certain labourers died during the process of
demolition, as such, an FIR came to be
lodged as Case Crime No.309 of 2016
under Section, 147, 302/34 IPC. In the said
FIR, six officers/officials including the
petitioner were named as accused. In
pursuance to the said FIR pertaining to
demolition being carried in Bungalow
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.210-B, the petitioner was arrested and
sent to District Jail on 10.07.2016. As the
petitioner was detained in custody for more
than 48 hours, the petitioner was placed
under deemed suspension in terms of the
provisions
of
Rule
10A(2)
of
the
Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937
(hereinafter referred to as ''the CFS Rules').

7. The petitioner after being released
from the custody again submitted his reply
to the charges levelled against him on
30.06.2017
and
supported
the
said
averments by means of the documents.

8. The petitioner challenged the
deemed suspension order by preferring
Writ - A No.61673 of 2017 (Anuj Singh v.
Cantt. Board and Ors.). This Court vide
order dated 22.12.2017 passed an interim
order staying the suspension order dated
27.07.2016. In the meanwhile, an order
came to be passed on 05.06.2017 and
31.07.2017
exonerating
the
Assistant
Engineer and Junior Engineer by the Board
vide Resolution No.586 dated 05.06.2017
and D.O. Part II Order dated 31.07.2017
(Annexure - 7) respectively. In view of the
exoneration of the said two persons, a letter
was written by the Chief Executive Officer,
the Disciplinary Authority to the Principal
Director seeking advice in respect of the
disciplinary
proceeding
against
the
petitioner on 03.01.2018 and 08.01.2018;
the Principal Director wrote a letter to the
Chief Executive Officer, Meerut advising
that the disciplinary proceeding can be
continued against the petitioner.

9. On 11.01.2018, a fresh order came
to be passed revoking the earlier deemed
suspension order and simultaneously a
resolution was passed placing the petitioner
under suspension once again on account of
alleged illegal sanction of building plan in
respect of Bungalow No.167, Chappel
Street Meerut Cantt. Meerut till the
completion of the inquiry. The said
suspension order dated 30.01.2018 was
challenged by the petitioner in Writ - A
No.5445 of 2018 and an interim order
dated 12.02.2018 (Annexure - 14) came to
be passed staying the suspension order
dated 30.01.2018. In the meanwhile, the
judgment and order of the Delhi High
Court was challenged by the Union of India
by preferring an SLP which came to be
dismissed on 14.05.2018. Thereafter, the
inquiry proceedings continued against the
petitioner
and
the
petitioner
crossexamined the witnesses adduced against
him. After the examination and crossexamination, a written brief was filed on
behalf of the petitioner by Defence
Assistant on 18.08.2018. After conclusion
of
the
inquiry,
the
Inquiry
Officer
submitted its report holding that five
charges stood proved against the petitioner
and
one
charge
was
partly
proved
(Annexure - 17). The petitioner submitted
his reply to the Inquiry Officer on
17.06.2019. On the one hand the inquiry
was continuing against the petitioner and
on the other hand, a resolution was passed
by the Board sanctioning the building plan
in respect of Bungalow No.167 Chappel
Street Meerut Cantt. Meerut in favour of its
owner (Annexure - 19).

10. Ignoring the said fact that in
respect of the main charge, the Delhi High
Court had adjudicated the issue and the
plan was also sanctioned on 18.07.2019,
the impugned punishment order came to be
passed
on
14.08.2019
imposing
the
punishment of dismissal from service on
the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the
punishment order by filing Writ - A
No.14027 of 2019 which was disposed off
on 05.10.2020 directing the petitioner to
4 All. Anuj Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
219
avail the alternative remedy of appeal
under Rule 14 of the CFS Rules. The
petitioner
preferred
an
appeal
on
22.10.2020. After hearing, the appellate
order came to be passed on 01.06.2021
modifying
the
punishment
order
of
dismissal to compulsory retirement. The
appellate authority held that Charge No.1,
which was the main charge in respect of the
allegations levelled for sanction of building
plan in relation to Bungalow No.167 as not
proved. The said orders are now under
challenge before this Court.

11. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the petitioner who has
also submitted his written submission.

12. The first submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the orders
impugned are unsustainable as the inquiry
has not been conducted following the due
process of law. He argues that in the
charge-sheet as many as seven charges
were levelled. He argues that in respect off
the first charge, the petitioner's contentions
have been accepted by the appellate
authority and thus, to that extent, the same
loses relevance in the present writ petition.

13. He argues that in respect of
Charges No.2 to 5 pertaining to the
allegation of unauthorized constructions
having come up, on the perusal of the
charges
levelled,
the
same
can
be
segregated into two parts; firstly, that the
petitioner failed to perform his duties as
Executive Engineer of the Board without
taking any effective action to stop the
unauthorized constructions as well as for
removal of the unauthorized constructions
at the initial stage and second limb of the
charge was that the said action of the
petitioner was with the intent and motive to
cause wrongful gain/benefit to the applicant
and loss to the Government of India as well
as
defeating
the
provisions
of
the
Cantonment Act.

14. In respect of Charges No.2 to 5,
he further argues that although the Inquiry
Officer has recorded the entire charge to be
proved, in the entire report there was no
material whatsoever to even prima-facie
form a view that the negligence of the
petitioner was with an intent to cause any
wrongful
gain/undue
benefit
to
the
petitioner or that any loss was caused to the
Government. He argues that the Inquiry
Officer while holding the said charge to be
proved
selectively
relied
upon
the
documentary evidence to suggest that in the
supervisory
role,
the
petitioner
was
negligent in not stopping the unauthorized
constructions. He reiterates that there was
no material or even document or any oral
evidence to prove the second limb of the
charge that any unlawful gain was caused
to the petitioner or that any loss was caused
to the Government of India.

15. In respect of Charge No.6, he
argues that the Inquiry Officer did not
consider
the
documentary
and
oral
evidence, including that of the Chief
Executive Officer to the effect that the
illegal occupation caused was not within
the purview of the duties assigned to the
petitioner and was with the Sanitation
Department, Junior Engineer and Assistant
Engineer. He further argues that even in the
appellate order it has been held that the
petitioner
was
merely
a
supervisory
authority and was neither the reporting
authority for any unauthorized construction
and nor was a part of the final decision
making authority. He argues that the duty
with regard to reporting of unauthorized
construction was assigned through various
duty orders issued by the Chief Executive
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officer and contained in Annexure No.20
to the writ petition. In terms of the said
orders, it is clear that the files were only to
be routed through the petitioner to the
Chief Executive Officer, who was the final
authority. He further argues that there is no
charge, that the petitioner who was
assigned the role of routing the files, failed
to do so.

16. He draws my attention to the
appellate authorities order which reflects
that although the petitioner did not perform
his supervisory duties, others were also
responsible
for
not
reporting
the
unauthorized constructions and it is on
record that no disciplinary proceedings
have been initiated either against the
persons who were empowered to report the
unauthorized constructions or against the
Chief Executive Officer, who was the final
authority to take the decision.

17. He next argues that on the one
hand proceedings have been initiated only
against the petitioner and against nobody
else, an extreme punishment of compulsory
retirement has been passed against the
petitioner without there being any iota of
evidence to prove the first limb or the
second limb of the charges levelled against
the petitioner.

18. He argues that it is well settled
that the role of the disciplinary inquiry is a
quasi-judicial one and should not be done
causally. All the charges levelled should be
properly proved and the disciplinary
authority is to act in an independent manner
while
exercising
the
quasi-judicial
functions. In support of the said, he places
reliance on the judgment of the State of
U.P. & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010)
2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab
National Bank; (2009) 2 SCC 570,
Chamoli District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v.
Raghunath Singh Rana; (2016) 12 SCC
204, M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India;
(2006) 5 SCC 88 and Radhey Kant Khare
v.
U.P.
Cooperative
Sugar
Factory
Federation Ltd.; 2002 SCC OnLine All
1575.

19. He next submits that no
proceedings have been initiated either
against the persons who were responsible
for
reporting
the
unauthorized
constructions
or
against
the
Chief
Executive Officer, who was the final
authority to pass the order and thus, the
action of the respondents against the
petitioner
is
malicious
and
is
also
discriminatory. To press on the said point,
learned counsel for the petitioner takes me
to the duty allocation orders (Annexure -
20) issued from time to time by the Chief
Executive Officer wherein it is clear that
the responsibility of reporting unauthorized
construction
was
on
the
Junior
Engineer/Assistant
Engineer
and
the
sanitation department and the final decision
making authority was the Chief Executive
Officer.

20. He also argues that in the
appellate order itself, finding has been
recorded
that
certain
other
employees/officials and the technical staff
are responsible for reporting any illegality
in the cantonment area. He argues that
there is no material to demonstrate that why
the respondents have not taken any action
against any of the said persons who were
responsible for reporting and against the
Chief Executive Officer. He argues that on
the one hand the appellate authority formed
an opinion that the petitioner was not the
reporting authority, however, the appellate
authority failed to take into consideration
that the petitioner is being selectively
4 All. Anuj Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
221
prosecuted. He argues that it is well settled
that parity among co-delinquents must be
maintained, especially when the charges
are similar and ignoring the same, the
action would clearly be discriminatory. He
relies on the following judgments:

Rajendra Yadav v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors.; (2013) 3 SCC
73

Man Singh v. State of Haryana
and Ors.; (2008) 12 SCC 331

State of U.P. and Ors. v. Raj Pal
Singh; (2010) 5 SCC 783

21. He then argues that the action
against the petitioner is malice in law. He
argues
that
the
petitioner
is
being
victimised for oblique purposes by the
respondents and thus, on that count, the
malice in law is apparent. He places
reliance on the following judgments in
support of his arguments:

A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti; AIR
2003 SC 1941

RS Garg v. State of U.P. & Ors.;
(2006) 6 SCC 430

Punjab State Electricity Board
Ltd. v. Zora Singh & Anr.; (2005) 6 SC
776

22. He next argues that the charges
levelled against the petitioner pertain to
negligence in holding the supervisory role
in respect of the constructions for the
period 1995 to 2013, which are stale. He
draws my attention to the Charges No.3 to
6 which pertain to the year 1995 and the
charge-sheet whereof was served on
20.12.2013.