# Constable No. 405 Anjani Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1134
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 9143 of 2013
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/constable-no-405-anjani-kumar-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42851
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Service Matter - Disciplinary
Proceeding - When the enquiry report is
submitted,
any
recommendation
of
punishment is not permissible - Such a
recommendation directly interferes with
the power of the disciplinary authority
(Para 4, 5)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Act of 2021, be it temporary or
permanent, has to be read down as
'services
rendered
by
a
government
employee, be it of temporary or permanent
nature'."

8. Therefore, none of the aforesaid
judgment is applicable to the facts of the
present case. The present Rules of 2011 are
parallel to the Rules of State Government
which have been read down by the
Supreme Court, being held in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as
they create an artificial categorization of
similarly situated employees. In the present
case also an artificial classification is
created as admittedly, as the work charge
employees perform the same duties as the
regular employees and are throughout
treated as the regular employee. They were
also regularized in continuation of their
work charge services. Thus, the matter is
squarely covered by the law settled in case
of Prem Singh (Supra).

9. Thus, the writ petition is allowed
and impugned order dated 16.10.2021 is set
aside.

10. Respondent no.3-Vice Chairman,
Gorakhpur
Development
Authority,
Gorakhpur is directed to ensure regular
payment of pensionary and other benefits
to the petitioner under the Rules of 2011,
treating their entire service to be performed
as regular employee of the Development
Authority within a period of three months.
However, back pension shall be paid for
the last three years only.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1134
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 9143 of 2013

Constable No. 405 Anjani Kumar Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raj Najth Pandey, Sri I.K. Singh, Sri Vinod
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Indresh Kumar Singh

Civil Law - Service Matter - Disciplinary
Proceeding - When the enquiry report is
submitted,
any
recommendation
of
punishment is not permissible - Such a
recommendation directly interferes with
the power of the disciplinary authority
(Para 4, 5)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Shiv Raj Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. CMWP
No. 2230 of 2014 dt 28.3.2018

2. Yashpal Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ-A No.
23402 of 2014 dt 23.4.2014

3. Himachal Pradesh St. Electricity Board Ltd.Vs
Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768

4. Allahabad Bank Vs Prem Narain Pande & ors.
(1995) 6 SCC 634

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

1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Girijesh Tripathi, learned standing counsel
for respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner is that
while submitting the Enquiry report which
4 All. Constable No. 405 Anjani Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1135
was initiated in a disciplinary proceedings
against
the
petitioner
and
finally
culminated into rejection of the revision
preferred by the petitioner for challenging
the order passed by the disciplinary
authority and appellate authority wherein
the same ground has been taken that the
enquiry report as submitted before the
disciplinary authority was having the report
after enquiry with a conclusion for
imposition of the penalty prescribed under
the rules pertaining to major penalty and
the same is unwarranted while placing the
enquiry report wherein charges levelled
against the petitioner has been found
proved. While assailing the order of
punishment dated 10.12.2011 the ground
for assailing the same with regard to
recommendation
of
punishment
while
preferring the enquiry report has been
strongly relied upon by the petitioner but
no material consideration has been drawn
either by the appellate authority or by the
revisional authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
challenged all the three orders passed by
the
disciplinary
authority,
appellate
authority as well as by the revisional
authority and substantiated the stand which
is squarely covered with the judgments
rendered by this court as well as by the
Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been
held that, it is required on the part of the
disciplinary authority to provide copy of
the enquiry report alongwith show cause
notice without making his mind for
proposed punishment. It is further argued
by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the legislation framed the rules
specially with regard to the conduction of
enquiry
and
disciplinary
proceedings
against the government servants a different
level has been set up so that the unaffected
and free thought of process may be
prevailed while taking a decision over the
subject matter put up before him in the
shape of either accepting the contentions of
the grounds taken up in the punishment
order or the grounds put forward for
challenging the same.

4. At the very initial level when the
Enquiry report has been submitted before
the disciplinary authority by the Enquiry
officer as nominated at the time of
initiation of disciplinary proceeding the
recommendation of punishment is not at all
permissible since being the initial stage
where the disciplinary authority must be
free from all prejudices/thoughts against
the delinquent employee, otherwise there
might be a great chances for infiltration of
impartial conclusion which is warranted to
be arrived by the disciplinary authority
while adjudicating the enquiry report in
pursuance to the charges levelled against
the employee alongwith the rebuttal in the
shape of the reply as submitted by the
charged
officer/employee
of
the
department.

5. The recommendation of the
punishment is the direct interference in the
power of the disciplinary authority which has
never been permitted or granted by the
statutory provisions as contained in the
disciplinary
and
appellate
rules
for
conduction of the enquiry and culmination of
the disciplinary proceeding initiated against
any government employee and as such the
same has been negated by this court in Civil
Misc. Writ petition No. 2230 of 2014
decided on 28.3.2018 (Shiv Raj Singh vs.
State of U.P. and other), Writ-A No. 23402
of 2014 decided on 23.4.2014 (Yashpal
Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).

6. The above mentioned decisions of
this court is broadly based on the judgment
1136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Apex Court in the case of Himachal
Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. vs.
Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768
alongwith the case of Allahabad Bank vs.
Prem Narain Pande and others (1995) 6
SCC 634.

7. Per contra learned standing counsel
vehemently opposed the prayer as made in
the petition but the principles as laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been
followed by this court while adjudicating
the controversy as raised in similar situated
conditions and cases as mentioned above
has not been denied, learned standing
counsel based his argument that the
punishment awarded to the petitioner is
justified since in the disciplined post
absence of only of few hours may attribute
to the penalty as awarded to the petitioner,
in the instant matter the petitioner absented
himself from the duty for more than two
years which culminated into order of
suspension and thereafter dismissal from
service after due conduction of the
disciplinary proceeding against him.

8. So far as the charges levelled
against the petitioner, the same has been
explained on various grounds, interalia the
prolonged illness of his wife compelled
him to stay without seeking formal
approval of leave but the same has been
intimated well within time. The ground of
recommendation of punishment at the time
of submitting the enquiry report as well as
on the other grounds as mentioned in the
memo of appeal as well as revision the
orders dated 10.12.2011, 29.4.2012 and
29.8.2012 passed by respondent nos. 5,4
and 3 respectively are hereby quashed and
set aside.

9. The respondent no.5 is hereby
directed to treat the petitioner as a regular
incumbent of the department and extend all
the benefits being the retired employee of
police department after attaining the age of
superannuation in the month of January,
2015 itself, the entire exercise with regard
to extension of benefit of back wages,
retiral
dues
and
other
admissible
increments
shall
be
completed
as
expeditiously as possible preferably within
a period of four months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

10. The writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1136
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 31818 of 2009

Ram Chandra Chaurasiya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, Sri M.N. Khan, Sri
Rahul Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri P.K. Yadav

Civil Law - Service Matter - Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921

-
Age
of
Superannuation - By Government Order
dated
27.02.2004,
the
age
of
superannuation for assistant teachers was
fixed at 62 years
- Petitioner was
compelled to retire at the age of 60 years
on the ground that the institution, being a
minority
institution,
has
separate
retirement rules according to its scheme
of administration - Institution case that
due to the institution's minority status,