# B.K. Kushwaha v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 909
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14709 of 2005
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/b-k-kushwaha-v-union-of-india-and-others-41266
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
law-two different punishment on two
different
charge
sheet-run
consecutively-held-shocking
the
confidence of court-modified to run
concurrently-with life of five years.

Held: Para 11

As held above, the view taken by the
respondent - Bank that the punishments
given to the petitioner under the two
orders passed by the Appellate Authority
and
confirmed
by
the
Reviewing
Authority would run consecutively and
not concurrently, is shocking to our
conscience. Therefore, in view of the
above decisions, a direction is liable to
be issued to the respondent-Bank that
both the punishments to the petitioner
with regard to both the charge-sheets
shall
run
concurrently
and
not
consecutively. After the period of five
years is over, both the punishment
orders will come to an end.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC 1571, (2003) 4 SCC 364, AIR
2005 SC 3417, AIR 2006 SC 2208, (2006) 10
SCC 388

## Text

3 All] B.K. Kushwaha V. Union of India and others
909
For the harassment caused to the
petitioner and for the non-payment of the
arrears of salary, the petitioner has made
out a case for grant of cost and payment
of interest on the delay in payment of the
salary. The petitioner has claimed cost as
well as 12% interest on arrears of the
salary from September, 2003 onwards
was not paid and was only cleared when
the Court directed. If a reasonable rate of
interest at the rate of 6% is charged,
approximately Rs.40,000/- would come
towards
interest.
This
Court,
consequently,
quantifies
a
sum
of
Rs.40,000/- as interest and cost of this
petition at Rs.10,000/-. The amount of
Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner
by means of a cheque/pay order/demand
draft in favour of the petitioner within
four weeks from today or may be credited
in her Account. If the amount is not paid
to the petitioner within the said period, it
would be open to the petitioner to move
an
appropriate
application
for
the
execution
of
the
order.
Since
the
respondents were responsible for not
paying the salary to the petitioner, the
Secretary,
Department
of
Health,
Lucknow is consequently directed to hold
an enquiry and recover the cost and
interest from the erring officials.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14709 of 2005

B.K. Kushwaha

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.D. Saunders
Sri R.K. Nigam
Sri H.L. Pandey
Sri S.M. Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.C. Sinha, Addl. Solicitor General of
India
Sri Vishnu Pratap
Sri Sahab Tiwari

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
law-two different punishment on two
different
charge
sheet-run
consecutively-held-shocking
the
confidence of court-modified to run
concurrently-with life of five years.

Held: Para 11

As held above, the view taken by the
respondent - Bank that the punishments
given to the petitioner under the two
orders passed by the Appellate Authority
and
confirmed
by
the
Reviewing
Authority would run consecutively and
not concurrently, is shocking to our
conscience. Therefore, in view of the
above decisions, a direction is liable to
be issued to the respondent-Bank that
both the punishments to the petitioner
with regard to both the charge-sheets
shall
run
concurrently
and
not
consecutively. After the period of five
years is over, both the punishment
orders will come to an end.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC 1571, (2003) 4 SCC 364, AIR
2005 SC 3417, AIR 2006 SC 2208, (2006) 10
SCC 388

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.)

1. Notice on behalf of the
respondent no.1 has been accepted by
Shri K.C. Sinha, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India. Notice on
behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 8 has
been accepted by Shri Vishnu Pratap,
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
910
learned counsel appearing for the said
respondents.

2. The petitioner is an Officer of
Scale-II in the respondent - Bank. A
charge-sheet dated 31.7.2000 was issued
to the petitioner levelling against him nine
charges. While the enquiry in respect of
the said charge-sheet was going on,
another charge-sheet dated 13.1.2001 was
issued to him levelling six charges. After
the
departmental
proceedings
were
completed, the Enquiry Reports were
submitted by the Inquiry Officer with
regard to the said two charge-sheets.

3. The Disciplinary Authority passed
a
punishment
order
on
30.11.2002
awarding punishment to the petitioner
with regard to the first charge-sheet. The
petitioner filed an Appeal against that
order.

4. Similarly, the Disciplinary
Authority passed a punishment order on
14.12.2002 with regard to the charges
levelled in the second charge-sheet. An
Appeal was also filed by the petitioner
against this punishment order.

5. The Appellate Authority decided
both the Appeals by separate orders dated
22.12.2003 and dated 24.12.2003, and
substantial reliefs were granted to the
petitioner. However, aggrieved with the
orders of the Appellate Authority, the
petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this
Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.44406 of 2004. This Court by its order
dated 12.11.2004 dismissed the Writ
Petition as withdrawn with liberty to the
petitioner to file a Review Application
before the Reviewing Authority.

6. The petitioner then filed a Review
Application
before
the
Reviewing
Authority in both the matters. The
Reviewing Authority passed a common
order
dated
11.1.2005,
wherein
it
considered both the punishment orders
and the orders passed in the Appeal, and
came to the conclusion that the Appellate
Authority had granted substantial relief to
the petitioner, and, accordingly, the
Reviewing
Authority
confirmed
the
reduced punishments granted by the
Appellate Authority for the separate
charge-sheets. The order passed by the
Reviewing Authority was communicated
to the petitioner on 24.1.2005. It is this
order, which has been challenged by the
petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

7. We have heard Shri R.K. Nigam,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent nos. 2 to 8, and perused
the record.

8. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has vehemently urged that the
punishments, which have been awarded
by the Disciplinary Authority with regard
to both the charge-sheets, and have been
reduced by the Appellate Authority,
should
run
concurrently
and
not
consecutively. It was not the intention of
the Appellate Authority or the Reviewing
Authority that when the first punishment
is over, the second punishment will start.
As the orders passed by the Appellate
Authority and the Reviewing Authority
do not suggest that these punishments will
run one after another, the inference to be
drawn is that both the punishments will
run concurrently.

9. If the view of the Bank that when
the punishment with regard to the first
3 All] Dr. Ram Khelawan Singh V. State of U.P. and another
911
charge-sheet is over, the punishment with
regard to the second charge-sheet would
start, then the petitioner will be seriously
prejudiced and will suffer ten years
instead of five years. The view taken by
the respondent - Bank is shocking to our
conscience.

10. It has been laid down by the
Supreme Court in various decisions that
the
punishment
imposed
by
the
Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate
Authority should not be subjected to
judicial review unless the same is
shocking to the conscience of the
Court/Tribunal. Reference in this regard
may be made to the following decisions:

1. Chairman and Managing Director,
United Commercial Bank and others v.
P.C. Kakkar, AIR 2003 SC 1571
(paragraphs 12,13 and 14)=(2003) 4 SCC
364 (paragraphs 12, 13 & 14).
2. V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. and
others, AIR 2005 SC 3417 (paragraphs
12,13 and 14).
3. General Secretary, South Indian
Cashew Factories Workers Union v.
Managing
Director,
Kerala
State
Cashew Development Corporation Ltd.
and
others,
AIR
2006
SC
2208
(paragraph 16).
4. Union of India and others v.
Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC
388 (paragraphs 10,11,15,16 and 17).

11. As held above, the view taken by
the
respondent
-
Bank
that
the
punishments given to the petitioner under
the two orders passed by the Appellate
Authority
and
confirmed
by
the
Reviewing
Authority
would
run
consecutively and not concurrently, is
shocking to our conscience. Therefore, in
view of the above decisions, a direction is
liable to be issued to the respondent -
Bank that both the punishments to the
petitioner with regard to both the chargesheets shall run concurrently and not
consecutively. After the period of five
years is over, both the punishment orders
will come to an end.

12. For the reasons given above, We
are of the opinion that this Writ Petition
deserves to be allowed, and the same is
accordingly allowed. The punishment
awarded to the petitioner by the Appellate
Authority
and
confirmed
by
the
Reviewing Authority is modified to the
extent that both the punishments awarded,
with
regard
to
charge-sheet
dated
31.7.2000 and with regard to charge-sheet
dated 13.1.2001, shall run concurrently
and after the period of five years is over,
both the punishment orders will come to
an end. Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32623 of 2001

Dr. Ram Khelawan Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shiv Nath Singh
Sri H.R. Misra
Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav
Sri Ashutosh Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.N. Shukla
Sri D.K. Tripathi
S.C.