# Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 63
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4054 of 2022
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48928
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Minor penalty of censure entry - Charge of
being engaged in corrupt practice -
Creation of properties and assets in his
own name and relatives - Duty of St. -
Held, whenever there are allegations
particularly
relating
to
corruption
or
defalcation of funds from St. exchequer, it
is primary duty of the St. Government to
take immediate steps and hold preliminary
inquiry to verify the veracity of the
allegations, and stop any further such
activity. (Para 21)
B.
Complaint
of
corrupt
practice
-
Departmental
enquiry
-
GO
dated
09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 provide for
making the complaint on affidavit - Noncompliance thereof, how far effect the
enquiry - Directory or mandatory -
Provisions of Government Orders dated
9th May, 1997 and 1st August, 1997 are
only to ensure that a public servant is not
harassed and is not faced with baseless
and false allegations. It is not the
mandate of the said Government Orders
that no preliminary inquiry can proceed
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unless and until the complaint is given on
affidavit. It is only a measure as to filter
baseless and motivated complaints and to
provide guidelines to the authorities to
see that a person making complaint is
serious about his complaint and there is
substantial material in the same and is not
made with oblique motive without having
any basis - The said Government Orders
are, only 'guidelines' and are directory and
not mandatory - Each complaint has to be
examined individually to come to a
conclusion as to whether the allegations
are serious and worthy of an inquiry or are
otherwise baseless, made with intention
to harass the Government servant. (Para
34)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
63
All India Institute of Medical Sciences)
while
dealing
with
the
contractual
appointment and non renewal of contract
refused relief observing as under:-

"6. It is settled law that no
contract employee has a right to have his
or her contract renewed from time to time.
That being so, we are in agreement with the
Central Administrative Tribunal and the
High Court that the petitioner was unable
to show any statutory or other right to have
his contract extended beyond 30th June,
2010. At best, the petitioner could claim
that the concerned authorities should
consider extending his contract. We find
that in fact due consideration was given to
this
and
in
spite
of
a
favourable
recommendation having been made, the All
India Institute of Medical Sciences did not
find it appropriate or necessary to continue
with his services on a contractual basis. We
do not find any arbitrariness in the view
taken by the concerned authorities and
therefore reject this contention of the
petitioner.

7. We are also in agreement with
the
view
expressed
by
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal and the High
Court that the petitioner is not entitled to
the benefit of the decision of this Court in
Uma Devi. There is nothing on record to
indicate that the appointment of the
petitioner on a contractual basis or on an
ad hoc basis was made in accordance with
any regular procedure or by following the
necessary rules. That being so, no right
accrues in favour of the petitioner for
regularisation of his services. The decision
in Uma Devi does not advance the case of
the petitioner."

8. In view of the above, we find no
error or illegality in the view taken by the
learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ
petition. The special appeal lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 63
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 4054 of 2022

Deepak Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ghaus Beg, Lalta Prasad Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Minor penalty of censure entry - Charge of
being engaged in corrupt practice -
Creation of properties and assets in his
own name and relatives - Duty of St. -
Held, whenever there are allegations
particularly
relating
to
corruption
or
defalcation of funds from St. exchequer, it
is primary duty of the St. Government to
take immediate steps and hold preliminary
inquiry to verify the veracity of the
allegations, and stop any further such
activity. (Para 21)
B.
Complaint
of
corrupt
practice
-
Departmental
enquiry
-
GO
dated
09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 provide for
making the complaint on affidavit - Noncompliance thereof, how far effect the
enquiry - Directory or mandatory -
Provisions of Government Orders dated
9th May, 1997 and 1st August, 1997 are
only to ensure that a public servant is not
harassed and is not faced with baseless
and false allegations. It is not the
mandate of the said Government Orders
that no preliminary inquiry can proceed
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unless and until the complaint is given on
affidavit. It is only a measure as to filter
baseless and motivated complaints and to
provide guidelines to the authorities to
see that a person making complaint is
serious about his complaint and there is
substantial material in the same and is not
made with oblique motive without having
any basis - The said Government Orders
are, only 'guidelines' and are directory and
not mandatory - Each complaint has to be
examined individually to come to a
conclusion as to whether the allegations
are serious and worthy of an inquiry or are
otherwise baseless, made with intention
to harass the Government servant. (Para
34)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. May George Vs Special Tehsildar & ors.;
(2010) 13 SCC 98
2. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Babu Ram Upadhya; AIR
1961 SC 751
3. B.S. Khurana & ors. Vs Municipal Corporation
of Delhi & ors. (2000) 7 SCC 679
4. St. of Har. & anr. Vs Raghubir Dayal; (1995)
1 SCC 133
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Dr. Lalta Prasad Misra as
well as Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as Sri Rahul Shukla,
learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing
for the respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition
the petitioner has assailed order passed by
the State Government dated 27.04.2022,
whereby an open inquiry is sought to be
conducted by the Vigilance Establishment
on the ground that respondents have
already conducted an inquiry with regard to
same allegations and no material was found
against the petitioner and hence the
proceedings were concluded in favour of
the petitioner and by means of impugned
order the petitioner is sought to be
victimised and harassed yet again by
holding vigilance inquiry.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was initially appointed on the excadre post of Assistant Director, City
Cleansing Department, Nagar Malapalika,
Kanour in the year 1991. Subsequently,
petitioner's services were absorbed in the
vacant post of Assistant Engineer (E/M)
inthe cadre of Centralized Services created
under
Rule
3
of
the
U.P.
Palika
(Centralized) Service Rules, 1966 and was
further
confirmed
by
order
dated
11.05.1994. He was then promoted to the
post of Chief Engineer (E/M) in 2016.

4. A complaint dated 25.04.2017, was
made against the petitioner by one Vinod
Kumar Pandey, Advocate alleging that
petitioner while discharging his duties as
Chief Engineer in Nagar Nigam, Lucknow
had amassed huge property by corrupt
means. On the basis of aforesaid complaint
an inquiry was initiated by the State
Government by order dated 15.11.2017.
The inquiry was conducted by Economic
Offences Wing Organization, Lucknow. In
the said inquiry written and oral evidences
were led and inquiry report was submitted
on 14.06.2019. In the said inquiry report
allegations against the petitioner could not
be proved. The inquiry report was duly
forwarded by the Additional Director
General of Police, Economic Offences who
vide letter dated 21.06.2019, informed the
State
Government
that
allegations
regarding
financial
irregularities
and
financial embezzlement has not been
proved
but,
for
some
other
minor
misconduct recommended for initiation of
8 All. Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
65
departmental
proceedings
against
the
petitioner.

5.

Accordingly,
departmental
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner pursuant to which a show cause
notice dated 09.10.2019 was given seeking
his response. The State
Government
considering reply of the petitioner dated
27.02.2020 and 13.03.2020, passed an
order dated 13.06.2020, whereby minor
penalty of "censure entry" was imposed
against the petitioner.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that yet another complaint
dated 09.08.2019 has been made by one Dr.
S.K. Sharma, Advocate to the Chief
Minister, U.P. levelling similar allegations
of accumulating assets disproportionate to
petitioner's known source of income. The
said complaint has resulted in passing of
the impugned order which has been
challenged by the petitioner in the present
writ petition.

7. The complaint made by Dr. S.K.
Sharma, Advocate resulted in an inquiry by
the Vigilance Establishment, Lucknow.
After conducting the inquiry, a report was
submitted on 03rd June, 2021, which is
marked as "confidential" document and has
been annexed alongwith the writ petition.
In the inquiry report Superintendent of
Police,
U.P.
Vigilance
Establishment
records that a complaint was received from
Dr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate alleging that the
petitioner has amassed huge wealth and
property for himself as well as in the name
of his relatives to the tune of nearly Rs.500
Crores.

8. During the inquiry it was found
that income of the petitioner from all
known
sources
was
around
Rs.1,06,67,598/- and he has acquired
certain properties in Nainital and also that
he has certain LIC policies. The income
and assets of his wife were also taken into
account and considered that petitioner has
received remittances from his relatives
living in UK, which has been shown to
have been gifted to him.

9. Inquiry was concluded in his
favour stating that the petitioner has been
able
to
demonstrate
that
assets,
commensurate with his income, but the
inquiry officer only found that he had not
informed the authorities with regard to
acquisition of the properties for which
further
disciplinary
proceedings
were
recommended.

10. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel
for the petitioner while assailing the
impugned order dated 27.04.2022, whereby
open vigilance inquiry has been directed to
be held against the petitioner, has submitted
that present inquiry is being initiated on the
basis of certain baseless and unverified
evidences which are contrary to the
Government Orders issued in this regard
which provide that it is mandatory that
allegations have to be supported by an
affidavit. He submits that the Government
Order dated 9th May, 1997, states that
looking into the large number of complaints
received with regard to higher officials
mainly category I, it is provided that
whenever a complaint is received, from a
MP/MLA or any other person holding high
post, then firstly, it should be verified from
the person making such complaint that he
had infact made the said complaint. In case
complaint is received from any other
person then the complainant should be
asked to submit his complaint on affidavit.
Similar provisions were reiterated in the
Government Order dated 1st August, 1997.
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The second ground of challenge is
that once an inquiry into the allegations
with
regard
to
accumulation
of
disproportionate assets has already been
conducted and punishment of "censure"
entry has been awarded, then it is not open
for the Government to conduct another
inquiry on the same set of facts. Counsel
for the petitioner submits that second
inquiry in the given circumstances would
be impermissible and contrary to law and
amounts to "double jeopardy" inasmuch a
person can be punished only once for his
misconduct and cannot be repeatedly
punished for the same misconduct again
and again as the same would be violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.

12. Sri Rahul Shukla, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents
while
opposing the writ petition has submitted
that there are very serious allegations
against the petitioner, who was holding post
of Chief Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow.
He submits that the petitioner was awarded
punishment of "censure" entry on the
ground that, on 02.04.2013 and 18.06.2013,
petitioner had purchased fire arms and
acquisition of the said fire arms was never
informed to the State Government and for
the said negligence a show cause notice
was given to him pursuant to which
"censure" entry was given to him only on
the ground that he had informed the State
Government about the aforesaid acquisition
with delay. He further submits that
punishment of 'censure' entry was not
awarded to the petitioner for acquiring any
of the properties for which earlier matter
was inquired by the Economic Offence
Wing, and therefore submitted that both the
allegations are distinct and different and
hence vehemently opposed the arguments
of the petitioner that he has been already
punished for the same allegations.

13.

Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel has drawn attention of
this Court to the confidential letter dated
03.06.2021 written by Superintendent of
Police, U.P. Vigilance Establishment stating
that on the basis of complaint dated
09.08.2019, made by one Dr. S.K. Sharma,
Advocate, property of nearly Rs.500/-
Crores
have
been
acquired
by
the
petitioner. The Vigilance Establishment was
asked to enquire into the said matter by
means of order dated 20.08.2020.

14. In pursuance to the aforesaid
directions
supplementary
Intelligence
Report
was
submitted
to
the
State
Government on 05.05.2022.

15. It has been further stated that
details of the complaint were got verified
from the complainant who submitted all the
details to the Vigilance Establishment
including bank details of Smt. Shalini
Yadav, wife of petitioner. Cognizance has
also been taken to a news report published
in the media with regard to certain
allegations with regard to the petitioner
having accumulated assets more than his
known sources of income.

16. The Vigilance Establishment
conducted inquiry and submitted its report
to the State Government on 03.06.2021. It
has
been
informed
that
the
State
Government did not agree with the
previous open Vigilance Inquiry and it has
also been stated that in the earlier Vigilance
Inquiry only 10 properties were subjected
to
scrutiny,
but
according
to
fresh
complaint the petitioner is alleged to have
amassed 14 properties which are subject
matter of present inquiry.
8 All. Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
67

17. The learned Additional Chief
Standing
Counsel
has
submitted
categorically that the petitioner has not
been punished in pursuance to the first
inquiry
conducted
by
the
Economic
Offences
Vigilance
Department
for
amassing disproportionate assets, but had
been awarded only 'censure' entry for
tendering delayed information to the State
Government with regard to acquisition of
fire arm by the petitioner. It is stated that
the issue pertaining to the allegations of
corruption and also for accumulating
disproportionate assets no formal inquiry or
proceedings have been initiated against the
petitioner, and it is only at the stage of
preliminary inquiry.

18. It has further been submitted that
on 28.09.2021, the Government being of
the view that earlier inquiries have not been
conducted in proper manner has rejected all
the earlier inquiry reports and all the
previous
inquiry
officers
have
been
replaced with the direction to again inquire
into the allegations against the petitioner
and the inquiry need to be conducted by an
officer not below the rank of Inspector
General of Police.

19. It is in the aforesaid facts of the
case that prayer has been made for
quashing the impugned order whereby
Vigilance Establishment has been asked to
conduct an open inquiry against the
petitioner. The said Vigilance inquiry has
been assailed firstly on the ground that
same has been initiated on the basis of
baseless
and
unverified
allegations,
contrary to the provisions of Government
Orders dated 9th May, 1997 and 1st
August, 1997. In the first Government
Order all the Principal Secretaries have
been informed that in case a complaint has
been made by officials occupying high
positions, then it should be verified whether
they had been sent by the complainant and
in all the other matters the complainant
should be asked to submit an affidavit, in
support of his allegations leveled against
the delinquent employee.

20. It is urged that the aforesaid
provisions are mandatory and present
inquiry being conducted contrary to the
aforesaid Government Orders is a nullity
hence deserves to be set aside.

21. Perusal of the complaints made
against the petitioner reveal that while
holding post of Chief Engineer of Nagar
Nigam, Lucknow he is alleged to have
purchased several properties and also
created assets in his own name and that in
the name of his relatives which cannot be
explained from his known sources of
income and hence there is presumption that
he is engaged in corrupt practices. When
ever there are allegations particularly
relating to corruption or defalcation of
funds from State exchequer, it is primary
duty of the State Government to take
immediate steps and hold preliminary
inquiry to verify the veracity of the
allegations, and stop any further such
activity.

22. This Court is of the considered
view that every rupee which is amassed by
any person holding public office, through
corrupt means infact is that money which
should have been found its place in the
State exchequer rather than pocketed in
illegal, unjustified manner resulting in
unjust enrichment of such public officials.

23. It is due to the fact that
government functions as a trustee of the
public funds and it is duty bound to protect
and preserve the public money and
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
undoubtedly prevent it from same finding
its way into the hands of unscrupulous
public servant.

24. In the present case, on the basis of
one such complaint inquiry was conducted
by the Economic Offences Wing where the
report
was
submitted
to
the
State
Government on 18.06.2019, exonerating
the petitioner where they inquired into ten
properties acquired by the petitioner. In the
present case the inquiry has been initiated
pursuant to the complaint made by one Dr.
S.K.
Sharma,
Advocate.
The
State
Government proceeded to verify the
contents
of
the
complaints.
The
complainant
provided
details
of
his
complaint and also provided material on
the basis of which said complaint was
made.

25. Dr. L.P. Mishra, lerned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that unless the
complaint is given on affidavit, the State
Government cannot initiate any inquiry
proceedings. To consider as to whether the
provisions of the above two Government
Orders requiring the complaint to be
submitted on an affidavit are mandatory or
directory, it will be useful to refer to some
legal pronouncements of Hon'ble the Apex
Court in this regard.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of May George Vs. Special Tehsildar
and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 98, has stated
the precepts, which can be summed up and
usefully applied by this Court, as follows:

(a) While determining whether a
provision
is
mandatory
or
directory,
somewhat on similar lines as afore-noticed,
the Court has to examine the context in
which the provision is used and the purpose
it seeks to achieve;

(b) To find out the intent of the
legislature, it may also be necessary to
examine serious general inconveniences or
injustices which may be caused to persons
affected by the application of such
provision;

(c) Whether the provisions are
enabling the State to do some things and/or
whether they prescribe the methodology or
formalities for doing certain things;

(d) As a factor to determine
legislative intent, the court may also
consider, inter alia, the nature and design of
the statute and the consequences which
would flow from construing it, one way or
the other;

(e) It is also permissible to
examine the impact of other provisions in
the same statute and the consequences of
non-compliance of such provisions;

(f) Physiology of the provisions is
not by itself a determinative factor. The use
of the words `shall' or `may', respectively
would ordinarily indicate imperative or
directory character, but not always.

(g) The test to be applied is
whether non-compliance with the provision
would render the entire proceedings invalid
or not.

(h) The Court has to give due
weightage to whether the interpretation
intended to be given by the Court would
further the purpose of law or if this purpose
could be defeated by terming it mandatory
or otherwise.

27. Reference can be made to the
following paragraphs of May George
(supra) :

"16. In Dattatraya Moreshwar
Vs. The State of Bombay and Others, AIR
1952 SC 181, the Court observed that law
which creates public duties is directory but
if it confers private rights it is mandatory.
8 All. Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
69
Relevant passage from this judgment is
quoted below:

`7........It is well settled that
generally speaking the provisions of the
statute creating public duties are directory
and those conferring private rights are
imperative. When the provisions of a statute
relate to the performance of a public duty
and the case is such that to hold null and
void acts done in neglect of this duty would
work serious general inconvenience or
injustice to persons who have no control
over those entrusted with the duty and at
the same time would not promote the main
object of legislature, it has been the
practice of the Courts to hold such
provisions to be directory only, the neglect
of them not affecting the validity of the acts
done."

28. A Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs.
Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751,
decided the issue observing:

"29.....For ascertaining the real
intention of the Legislature, the Court may
consider, inter alia, the nature and the
design of the statute, and the consequences
which would follow from construing it the
one way or the other, the impact of other
provisions
whereby
the
necessity
of
complying with the provisions in question is
avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the
statute provides for a contingency of the
non-compliance with the provisions, the
fact that the non- compliance with the
provisions is or is not visited by some
penalty, the serious or trivial consequences
that flow therefrom, and, above all, whether
the object of the legislation will be defeated
or furthered."

29. In B.S. Khurana and Ors. v.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 679], the Apex Court
considered the provisions of the Delhi
Municipal
Corporation
Act,
1957,
particularly those dealing with transfer of
immovable
property
owned
by
the
Municipal Corporation. After considering
the scheme of the Act for the purpose of
transferring the property belonging to the
Corporation, the Court held that the
Commissioner could alienate the property
only on obtaining the prior sanction of the
Corporation and this condition was held to
be mandatory for the reason that the effect
of
non-observance
of
the
statutory
prescription would vitiate the transfer
though no specific power had been
conferred upon the Corporation to transfer
the property.

30. In State of Haryana and Anr. v.
Raghubir Dayal, (1995) 1 SCC 133, the
Apex Court has observed as under:

"5. The use of the word `shall' is
ordinarily mandatory but it is sometimes
not so interpreted if the scope of the
enactment, or consequences to flow from
such construction would not so demand.
Normally, the word `shall' prima facie
ought to be considered mandatory but it is
the function of the Court to ascertain the
real intention of the legislature by a careful
examination of the whole scope of the
statute, the purpose it seeks to serve and
the consequences that would flow from the
construction to be placed thereon. The
word `shall', therefore, ought to be
construed not according to the language
with which it is clothed but in the context in
which it is used and the purpose it seeks to
serve. The meaning has to be described to
the word `shall; as mandatory or as
directory accordingly. Equally, it is settled
law that when a statute is passed for the
purpose of enabling the doing of something
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and prescribes the formalities which are to
be
attended
for
the
purpose,
those
prescribed formalities which are essential
to the validity of such thing, would be
mandatory. However, if by holding them to
be
mandatory,
serious
general
inconvenience
is
caused
to
innocent
persons or general public, without very
much furthering the object of the Act, the
same would be construed as directory."

31. The purpose of the aforesaid
government Orders is very clear which is to
prevent unnecessary harassment to the
public servant which may be occasioned by
lodging of false and frivolous complaints
by anonymous persons only with the
oblique purpose of causing harm to the
reputation and career such public servant,
without there being any basis for the said
allegations.

32. At this stage, we would hasten to
add, the aforesaid Government Orders, on
the other hand does not grant an omnibus
or to prevent any inquiry where there are
serious allegations of corruption, and the
allegations are based on verifiable facts. In
case there are serious allegations of
corruption and amassing of property
through corrupt means, then mere giving a
list of property would be sufficient to
initiate preliminary inquiry.

33. These Government Orders
cannot be utilised by public servant to
stall any inquiry, as this could never have
been
the
intention
of
the
State
Government
while
passing
the
Government Orders. Where it is found
that the allegations relate to actions/facts
which are not in the public domain and
are dependent upon the statements or
material which can be disclosed only by
private individuals, in such cases it would
be necessary to proceed only when such
allegations are made on affidavit, as most
people
tend
to
retract
from
their
statements when asked to depose against
a public servant during inquiry.

34. The provisions of Government
Orders dated 9th May, 1997 and 1st
August, 1997 are only to ensure that a
public servant is not harassed and is not
faced with base less and false allegations.
It is not the mandate of the said
Government Orders that no preliminary
inquiry can proceed unless and until the
complaint is given on affidavit. It is only
a measure as to filter baseless and
motivated complaints and to provide
guidelines to the authorities to see that a
person making complaint is serious about
his complaint and there is substantial
material in the same and is not made with
oblique motive without having any basis.
The said Government Orders also do not
prescribe
the
consequences
of
non
compliance and therefore, this Court is of
the
considered
view
that
the
said
Government Orders are, only 'guidelines'
and are directory and not mandatory.
Each complaint has to be examined
individually to come to a conclusion as to
whether the allegations are serious and
worthy of an inquiry or are otherwise
baseless, made with intention to harass
the Government servant. It is also
noticeable that if after a complaint is
made on the basis of an affidavit it has to
be followed by an inquiry to verify the
contents contained therein and in any
case the affidavit in itself cannot be sole
basis for taking any action against the
delinquent employee.

35. Considering the facts on record
specially considering the order dated 30th
June, 2021, it is noticed that it is only after
8 All. Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71
due diligence and after verifying the
requisite facts, that the competent authority
as well as the Vigilance Establishment
proceeded to inquiry into the matter.

36. The arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner with regard to the said
issue does not merit any interference and
are hence, rejected.

37. The second ground for assailing
the said Vigilance inquiry is the fact that in
the present case where the petitioner has
already been awarded punishment of
'censure', he cannot be proceeded against
on the same set of facts and has invoked
principle of "double jeopardy".

38. It has been brought forth clearly
in the various documents annexed with
the writ petition as well as stand taken by
the respondents that punishment of
'censure' was awarded only because the
petitioner has purchased fire arm and
sought
permission
of
the
State
Government after great delay. Issue of
disproportionate assets and amassing
wealth beyond known sources of income
no departmental proceedings were ever
initiated against him and no charge sheet
was ever served on him. It has also come
on record that with regard to inquiry
conducted by the Economic Offices Wing
and
subsequently
by
the
Vigilance
department never attained finality and
consequently it cannot be said that the
petitioner is being punished again on the
basis of facts on which the present
inquiry is being conducted. The principle
of "double jeopardy" is not applicable to
the facts of the present case.

39. In the light of aforesaid decisions
second ground raised by the petitioner is
accordingly rejected.

40. It was further contended that once
an inquiry is concluded in favour of the
petitioner and inquiry report submitted the
competent
authority
even
conducted
inquiry again on the same set of facts,
would amount to harassment and may merit
interference of this Court in exercise of
powers
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

41. It is noticed that on the first
occasion there were allegations regarding
purchase of only ten properties by the
petitioner, and the inquiry report submitted
by the Economic Offences Wing to the
State Government was never accepted and
hence subsequent Vigilance inquiry was
initiated. The Vigilance Establishment also
conducted inquiry and submitted its report
to the State Government, which again was
not accepted, as the State Government was
of the opinion that inquiry was not
conducted fairly and hence fresh inquiry is
sought to be conducted on the basis of 14
properties acquired by the petitioner, by a
senior Police Officer not below the rank of
Inspector General of Police.

42. It has been vehemently submitted
that four properties which are alleged to
have been acquired by the petitioner were
never
subject
matter
of
the
earlier
preliminary inquiries and hence it cannot
be said that subject matter of the earlier
inquiries are same as that of the present
inquiry.

43. It cannot be said that the petitioner
is being harassed. It was informed to this
Court that now inquiry is being directed to
be conducted by the officials not below the
rank of Inspector General of Police to
ensure that proper and fair inquiry is made
into the allegations leveled against the
petitioner.
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

44. It is further noticed that mere
conducting preliminary inquiry cannot
amount to harassment as at this stage the
petitioner is not subjected to any adverse
consequences as a result of the said inquiry.
The Vigilance inquiry is a fact finding
inquiry
were
only
veracity
of
the
allegations are sought to be tested and it is
only when the allegations are found to be
correct then only disciplinary proceedings
are initiated and the petitioner is given
charge sheet.

45. Considering the aforesaid facts,
this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order, whereby
open Vigilance inquiry is sought to be
initiated against the petitioner.

46. The writ petition being devoid of
merits, is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 72
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

Writ A No. 4636 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chandra Lal Sonkar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:

A. Service Law - Dismissal from service -
Misconduct - Making a call, how far
material for evaluating a misconduct - No
allegation of influencing the Court - Effect
- Held, call details do not seem to be a
collection of any incriminating material
except something which may doubt the
employer of a person in his personal
liberty being in contact with another
person of doubtful credentials - Mere
doubt on the part of the disciplinary
authority unless supported by a definite
damage or loss caused to the St., cannot
be evaluated to be a misconduct - Division
Bench of the High Court found no illegality
in the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal
for setting aside the impugned order of
dismissal from service. (Para 8, 9 and 10)
Writ dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. S.B.I. & ors. Vs Samarendra Kishore Endow &
anr.; (1994) 2 SCC 537

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari, J.)

1. This writ petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by
the
State
is
directed
against
the
judgement/order dated 25.1.2022 rendered
by U.P. Public Service Tribunal in Claim
Petition No. 1528 of 2021.

2. The opposite party feeling
aggrieved against the order of dismissal
from service had instituted the claim
petition under Section 4 of the U.P. Public
Service Tribunal Act, 1976 and upon
exchange of the pleadings before the
Tribunal, the case was contested and
challenge to the order of dismissal from
service was upheld by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal passed the following order:

"Petition is allowed. Punishment
order dated 22.7.2021 (Annexure-1) is
quashed with all consequential benefits. It