# Dharvendra Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 431
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-24
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 9632 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dharvendra-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53564
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Bhanu Pratap Singh kachhawah, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher in 2007 and later transferred to
Upper Primary School ,Kangarpur,BlockMarhera, District-Etah. On August 27,2024,
during an inspection, he was found absent
without
authorization.
this
led
to
his
suspension and a departmental enquiry
proceeded ex-parte.

Headnotes
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999The petitioner challenged an order
dated May 28,2025, by District Basic
Education Officer Etah which stopped
one of his increments and transferred
him Upper Primary School-The court
found no significant procedural lapses
causing prejudice, relying on Supreme
Court Judgments-The transfer based
on the August 20,2022 circular and
linked to the January 17,2023 order
was valid posting to a vacancy after
suspension revocation, not requiring
interference-Petition dismissed.
Held:
A charge sheet was issued, petitioner
submitted a reply but inquiry proceeded ex
parte-A second show cause notice followed
in January 2025, and despite requests for
the inquiry report, the process continuedThe District Basic Education Officer revoked
suspension but imposed a minor penalty:
stoppage of one annual increment and
transfer to Composite Institution-Petitioner
claimed violations of natural justice and
procedural defects i.e. charge sheet and
inquiry report not served properly and
inquiry not conducted fairly under Rules
4,7, 8, 9, 10 of the 1999 Rules-Petitioner
sought quashing of order dated 28 May
2025 and referenced a similar case(Special
Appeal No. 208 of 2025) for interim reliefThe State and BSA argued the process
followed the 1999 Rules, and the Transfer
was administrative, justified by judicial
precedents and government orders dated
17
January
2023-the
court
found
no
significant
procedural
lapses
causing
prejudice
relying
on
Supreme
Court
judgments-No interference was warrantedThe writ petition was dismissed.(Para 21 to
33) (E-6)

Case Law Cited
St. of U.P. & Anr. Vs Johri Mal (2004) AIR
SC 3800; Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn.
Vs St. of U.P. & Anr.(2003) 4 SCC 104;
Param Singh & 4 Ors Vs St. of UP & 5
Ors.(2018)
SCC
Online
All
5677;Kul
Bhushan Mishra & Anr Vs St. of UP & Ors
(2023) SCC OnLine ALL 286; St. of UP Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha(2010) 2 SCC 772; UOI
Vs
Tulsiram
Patal(1985)
3
SCC
398;
Chairman,LIC Vs A.Masilamani(2023) 6 SCC
530;
St.
of
Ori.
VS
Bidyabhushan
Mohapatra(1963)AIR SC 779;M.D. ECIL Vs
B. Karunakar(1993) 4 SCC 727-reffered to.

List of Acts/Rules
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant(Discipline and Appeal) Rules of
1973 read with Rules 1999.

List of Keywords
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules,1999;
Suspension;
Inquiry
Report,
Ex-parte
inquiry; Charge sheet ;Procedural fairness;
Minor Penalty; Transfer; Increment; Judicial
review;
Prejudice
;Government
Order
(17.01.2023); Assistant Teacher; Circular.

Case Arising From
Service matter: WRIT-A No. - 9632 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Dharvendra Pal Singh Vs.State of U.P. &3 Others

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the petitioner:
Prabhakar Awasthi, Rohit Upadhyay

Adv. for the Respondents:
Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, C.S.C.

## Text

7 All. Dharvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
431
representation of the petitioner dated
16.05.2025 in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible within a period of
two months from the production of
certified copy of this order
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 431
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 9632 of 2025

Dharvendra Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prabhakar Awasthi, Rohit Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
Bhanu Pratap Singh kachhawah, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher in 2007 and later transferred to
Upper Primary School ,Kangarpur,BlockMarhera, District-Etah. On August 27,2024,
during an inspection, he was found absent
without
authorization.
this
led
to
his
suspension and a departmental enquiry
proceeded ex-parte.

Headnotes
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999The petitioner challenged an order
dated May 28,2025, by District Basic
Education Officer Etah which stopped
one of his increments and transferred
him Upper Primary School-The court
found no significant procedural lapses
causing prejudice, relying on Supreme
Court Judgments-The transfer based
on the August 20,2022 circular and
linked to the January 17,2023 order
was valid posting to a vacancy after
suspension revocation, not requiring
interference-Petition dismissed.
Held:
A charge sheet was issued, petitioner
submitted a reply but inquiry proceeded ex
parte-A second show cause notice followed
in January 2025, and despite requests for
the inquiry report, the process continuedThe District Basic Education Officer revoked
suspension but imposed a minor penalty:
stoppage of one annual increment and
transfer to Composite Institution-Petitioner
claimed violations of natural justice and
procedural defects i.e. charge sheet and
inquiry report not served properly and
inquiry not conducted fairly under Rules
4,7, 8, 9, 10 of the 1999 Rules-Petitioner
sought quashing of order dated 28 May
2025 and referenced a similar case(Special
Appeal No. 208 of 2025) for interim reliefThe State and BSA argued the process
followed the 1999 Rules, and the Transfer
was administrative, justified by judicial
precedents and government orders dated
17
January
2023-the
court
found
no
significant
procedural
lapses
causing
prejudice
relying
on
Supreme
Court
judgments-No interference was warrantedThe writ petition was dismissed.(Para 21 to
33) (E-6)

Case Law Cited
St. of U.P. & Anr. Vs Johri Mal (2004) AIR
SC 3800; Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn.
Vs St. of U.P. & Anr.(2003) 4 SCC 104;
Param Singh & 4 Ors Vs St. of UP & 5
Ors.(2018)
SCC
Online
All
5677;Kul
Bhushan Mishra & Anr Vs St. of UP & Ors
(2023) SCC OnLine ALL 286; St. of UP Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha(2010) 2 SCC 772; UOI
Vs
Tulsiram
Patal(1985)
3
SCC
398;
Chairman,LIC Vs A.Masilamani(2023) 6 SCC
530;
St.
of
Ori.
VS
Bidyabhushan
Mohapatra(1963)AIR SC 779;M.D. ECIL Vs
B. Karunakar(1993) 4 SCC 727-reffered to.

List of Acts/Rules
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant(Discipline and Appeal) Rules of
1973 read with Rules 1999.

List of Keywords
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules,1999;
Suspension;
Inquiry
Report,
Ex-parte
inquiry; Charge sheet ;Procedural fairness;
Minor Penalty; Transfer; Increment; Judicial
review;
Prejudice
;Government
Order
(17.01.2023); Assistant Teacher; Circular.

Case Arising From
Service matter: WRIT-A No. - 9632 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Dharvendra Pal Singh Vs.State of U.P. &3 Others

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the petitioner:
Prabhakar Awasthi, Rohit Upadhyay

Adv. for the Respondents:
Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi,
learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Rohit
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Hare Ram,
learned counsel for the State-respondents and
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, learned
counsel for the respondent-BSA.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed with the prayer to quash the impugned
order dated 28.05.2025 passed by respondent
no.2 -District Basic Education Officer, Etah,
vide which, one increment of the petitioner
has been stopped and he has been transferred
from Upper Primary School, Kangarpur, Etah
to Composite Institution, Nawar, in District
Etah.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was appointed on
the post of Assistant Teacher and was posted
at
Junior
Primary
School,
Milawali,
Sheetalpur,
District-
Etah,
through
appointment letter dated 19.05.2007. There
was no complaint against him as he
continued to discharge his duties to the
utmost
satisfaction
of
the
authorities
concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner under the
State Government policy was transferred
from the post of Head Teacher, Junior
Primary School, Block- Jaithra, District- Etah
to his position as Assistant Teacher in Upper
Primary
School,
Khangarpur,
Block-
Marhera, District- Etah, by order dated
18.09.2013.

5.
The
Block
Education
Officer,
Marhera, District- Etah under the directions
issued by the District Basic Education,
Officer, Etah, made an inspection in the
institution on 27.08.2024 at 1:50 P.M.,
wherein the petitioner was found absent and
the inspection report dated 27.08.2024 was
prepared to the aforesaid effect. On the basis
of the said report, the petitioner was placed
under
suspension
vide
order
dated
30.08.2024, contemplating an inquiry.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the
petitioner filed Writ A No.18500 of 2024
(Dharvendra Pal Singh vs. State of UP and 3
Others), which was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
25.11.2024,
directing
the
respondent
authorities
to
conclude
the
enquiry
proceedings within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the order. The Court also did not
interfere in the suspension order dated
30.08.2024.
After
conclusion
of
the
inquiry, the charge sheet dated 04.11.2024
was
served
upon
the
petitioner
on
25.11.2024 and reply to the same was
7 All. Dharvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
433
submitted on 26.11.2024 before the inquiry
officer, about which the petitioner came to
know on 25.11.2024 as informed by the
learned counsel for the respondent while
appearing in Writ A No.18500 of 2024,
thus, the orders accordingly were passed to
conclude the inquiry.

7. It appears that on 19.11.2024, some
letter was issued by respondent no.2
District Basic Education Officer to the
respondent
no.4-Block
Education
Officer/Inquiry Officer, directing him to
complete the inquiry within 15 days.
Another letter dated 20.11.2024 was issued
by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner,
directing him to submit his reply within
two days. On 21.11.2024, petitioner sent a
letter to the Inquiry Officer requesting him
for a week's time to submit his reply,
which was turned down by the respondent
no.4/Inquiry
Officer
by
letter
dated
23.11.2024
and
on
the
same
day,
respondent no.4 gave a letter to the
petitioner, which was in the form of threat
stating that if he failed to submit a reply to
the charge sheet, the matter would proceed
ex-parte. It appears that an ex-parte inquiry
report dated 28.12.2024 was submitted by
the respondent no.4/Inquiry Officer, which
was not provided to the petitioner.

8. On 07.01.2025, the respondent
no.2-District Basic Education Officer,
issued a second show cause notice to the
petitioner, mentioning about the charge
sheet dated 28.12.2024 and required him to
be present in person in his office on
10.01.2025 to submit his reply.

9. On 10.01.2025, the petitioner
represented before respondent no.4/Inquiry
Officer, requesting him to supply a copy of
Inquiry Report. The petitioner sent another
letter dated 20.03.2025 to the District Basic
Education Officer, demanding a copy of the
inquiry report.

10. Instead of providing the inquiry
report, the respondent no.4/Inquiry Officer,
submitted a letter to the respondent no.2,
dated 02.05.2025 referring about some
letter dated 26.04.2025, vide which the
respondent
no.2
had
directed
for
conducting an inquiry again as some
objection was raised by the petitioner. In
his
letter,
the
respondent
no.4
has
mentioned that the inquiry report dated
28.12.2024 had already been submitted
before respondent no.2, therefore, in case
of dissatisfaction on the part of petitioner,
direction may be issued to get the inquiry
conducted by some other agency.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the impugned order dated
28.05.2025 has been passed in violation of
the principles of natural justice, as the
inquiry report was never served upon the
petitioner. Pointing out the procedural
defects under Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules 1999, "in short 'Rules of
1999", in consonance of which the inquiry
was conducted, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the order impugned
has been passed in an arbitrary manner
without adhering to the procedure as
prescribed under Rule 7 of Rules of 1999.
He further submits that once the inquiry has
been started under Rule 4 of the Rules of
1999 and the petitioner has been placed
under suspension, the inquiry was to be
conducted under Rule 7 and, accordingly,
the report was to be submitted under Rule 8
of Rules of 1999 and after submission of
the inquiry report, the action was to be
taken on the inquiry report as per procedure
prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules of
1999. According to which, in the case of
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner, as per Rule 9(4) of the
aforesaid
Rules,
if
the
Disciplinary
Authority, having regard to its finding on
all or any of the charges, is of the opinion
that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3
of the 1999 Rules should be imposed on the
charged Government servant, he shall
furnish a copy of the inquiry report, if he
disagrees with the finding of the Inquiry
Officer on any of the charges, after
recording his finding thereon for reasons to
be recorded and shall require the charged
Government
servant
to
submit
his
representation, if he so desires, within a
reasonable specified time. After receiving
the
representation
of
the
charged
Government servant, a reasoned order has
to be passed imposing one or more
penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of Rules of
1999 and the same has to be communicated
to the charged Government servant.

12. In the present case, the charge sheet has
been submitted on 04.11.2024, which was never
served upon the petitioner, however, information
was given by the concerned about the aforesaid
before the Writ Court on 25.11.2024, and reply to
the same was submitted on 26.11.2024. Without
discussing about the same, the order impugned
has been passed, which is the violation of
principles of natural justice.

13. The order should have been passed
taking recourse to Rule 10(2) of Rules of 1999 as
the same provides the procedure applicable for
imposing minor penalties for which the
Government servant has to be informed by giving
a notice mentioning the substance of the
imputations against him and calling upon him to
submit a reply within a reasonable time. Due to
the aforesaid procedural defects, the order
impugned cannot be sustained.

14. The order impugned speaks about some
circular dated 20.08.2022, considering which, the
petitioner has been shifted from his assumption of
duties as Assistant Teacher from Upper Primary
School, Kangarpur, Marhera, District-Etah to
Composite Institution, Nawar, Block- Aliganj,
District Etah, which is approximately 70
kilometres away. However, perusal of the
aforesaid does not mention about any such posting
to be done after any inquiry being conducted
against the petitioner.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that despite repeated requests, the inquiry
report was not provided to the petitioner. He has
also tried to draw the attention of the Court to the
communication letter dated 02.05.2025 whereby
respondent no.4 has refused to make any further
inquiry and has also informed the respondent no.2
that in case any further inquiry is required, some
other inquiry officer be appointed.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
also placed reliance upon the order passed in
Special Appeal No.208 of 2025 (Smt. Tripti
Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and Others) wherein the
effect and operation of the order impugned therein
i.e. dated 27.01.2025 has been kept in abeyance
and the petitioner, Smt. Tripti Tripathi has been
allowed to continue at the place where she was
previously working. Therefore, the petitioner is
also entitled for the same relief.

17. Learned Standing Counsel as well as
learned counsel for the respondent-BSA, on the
other hand, submit that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the order impugned. All the procedure
as required under law has been followed. The
petitioner has been served with the charge sheet as
well as inquiry report and the punishment order
has also been served upon the petitioner on
29.05.2025 about which he was informed when
he filed Writ A No.7813 of 2025 (Dharvendra Pal
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others).

18. It is evident from the records that
from the representation dated 10.01.2025
7 All. Dharvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
435
submitted
before
respondent
no.2
requesting for the inquiry report and
subsequently the letter dated 02.05.2025 by
respondent
no.4
addressed
to
the
respondent no.2, wherein it has been
mentioned by the BSA in his letter dated
26.04.2025 that some objection to the
inquiry report is there from the side of
petitioner, therefore, inquiry may be
conducted again. The aforesaid letter has
not been denied by the petitioner which
means that he was provided with the copy
of the inquiry report.

19. Learned counsel for the State as
well as learned counsel for respondentBSA, submit that no procedural defect
occurred and the Rules of 1999 were
followed, wherein after following the
procedure under Rule 7, may be with some
flaws the inquiry report has been submitted
under Rule 8 and punishment order has
been passed under Rule 9(4), which says
that after the inquiry report is given to the
petitioner, representation is submitted, the
order imposing penalty as mentioned in
Rule 3 (major or minor) is to be imposed
upon the charged government servant,
which has been done in the present case.
The concerned authority after revoking the
suspension order has imposed the penalty
by the impugned order by stopping one
increment and posting the petitioner at
some other place. Thus there was no
occasion to take recourse to Rule 10(2) of
Rules 1999 for passing the order impugned.

20. As regards the circular dated
20.08.2022,
considering
which
the
petitioner has been transferred from his
place of posting to some other place, in
case it is considered as a transfer order, no
interference is required as per settled
positing of law, which have been discussed
in the following judgements:-

(1). The Supreme Court in the
case of State of U.P. and another v. Johri
Mal, AIR 2004 SC 3800, has held that
even if there is wrong order the Court is not
bound to interfere under Article 226 of
Constitution of India unless the order is in
violation of the Statutes or it causes some
miscarriage of justice. Relevant part of the
order in Johri Mal (supra) reads as under:-

"28. The scope and extent of power of
the judicial review of the High Court contained in
Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary
from case to case, the nature of the order, the relevant
statute as also the other relevant factors including the
nature of power exercised by the public authorities,
namely, whether the power is statutory, quasi judicial
or administrative. The power of judicial review is not
intended to assume a supervisory role or done the
robes of omnipresent. The power is not intended
either to review governance under the rule of law nor
do the Courts step into the areas exclusively reserved
by the supreme lex to the other organs of the State.
Decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative
disposition may not strictly fall for consideration
before a judicial review Court. The limited scope of
judicial review succinctly put are:

(i) Courts, while exercising the power of
judicial review, do not sit in appeal over the
decisions of administrative bodies.

(ii) A petition for a judicial review would
lie only on certain well-defined grounds.

(iii) An order passed by an administrative
authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be
interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that
exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal.

(iv) A mere wrong decision without
anything more is not enough to attract the power of
judicial
review;
the
supervisory
jurisdiction
conferred on a Court is limited to seeing that
Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority
and that its decisions do not occasions miscarriage of
justice.

(v) The Courts cannot be called upon to
undertake the Government duties and functions. The
Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy
decision of the State. Social and economic belief of a
Judge should not be invoked as a substitute for the
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment of the legislative bodies. (See Ira Munn v.
State of Ellinois, 1876 (94) US (Supreme Reports)
113)."

(2). The Supreme Court in the
case of Public Services Tribunal Bar
Association Vs. State of U.P. and
another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, has held that
ordinarily the High Court should not stay
suspension, transfer and termination orders.

(3). Param Singh and 4 Others
vs. State of UP and 5 Ors., 2018 SCC
OnLine ALL 5677.

(4). Kul Bhushan Mishra and
Another Vs. State of UP and 4 Others,
2023 SCC OnLine ALL 286.

21. Learned counsel for the State as well
as learned counsel for respondent-BSA, submit
that if the same is considered as posting, it is in
view of the judgement as discussed in the
circular dated 20.08.2022, which has not been
placed on record by the petitioner. The order
has been passed in terms of Uttar Pradesh
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules of 1973 read with Rules 1999, wherein
the procedure as required under law has been
followed, therefore, there is no illegality or
infirmity in the order impugned.

22. The communication letter dated
02.05.2025, whereby respondent no.4 has
refused to make any further inquiry, has been
wrongly understood by learned counsel for the
petitioner as the same mentions that as the
petitioner is not satisfied by the inquiry report,
the same can be conducted by some other
agency as he has already submitted the inquiry
report on 28.12.2024 before BSA. Even
otherwise, there is provision of filing an appeal
against the punishment order wherein minor
penalty of stopping one increment has been
passed, which should have been availed by the
petitioner prior to approaching this Court.

23. Learned counsel for the State has
placed the order passed in Special Appeal
No.790 of 2024 (Secretary Basic Education
Board And Another Vs. Smt. Suman (Incharge) and Another) wherein the Division
Bench of this Court vide interim order dated
05.03.2025 has directed the petitioner therein to
join the institution where she has been
transferred/posted.

24. Learned counsel for the State further
submits that the Government order dated
20.08.2022 refers about the order dated
14.09.2021 passed in Special Appeal No.274 of
2020 (Amit Sekhar Bhardwaj Vs. State of UP
and 2 Others), according to which random
allotment has to be done while posting or
transferring
any
Assistant
Teacher.
Accordingly, the Government order dated
17.01.2023 has been issued, taking into
consideration the posting of the petitioner has
been done. He further submits that once the
petitioner was placed under suspension, he/she
is attached to some other place and on
suspension being revoked the attachment order
also ceases to operate, accordingly, the person
concerned has to be posted to the place where a
vacancy exists and this is as per the
Government order dated 17.01.2023, which has
been done in the present case. He further
submits that the order impugned has been
passed taking into consideration the Rules of
1973 read with Rules of 1999, therefore,
there is no illegality or infirmity in the
order impugned.

25. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

26. It has been brought to the notice of
this Court that certain objections have been
raised pertaining to the absence of specific
dates and ancillary procedural references in
the order impugned. The learned counsel
has contended that such omissions vitiate
7 All. Dharvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
437
the impugned order hence the same is liable
to be set aside.

27. The Court is referring some
relevant judgements passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court, which are as follows:-

1. In the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2
SCC 772, the Supreme Court has held that
a disciplinary authority must provide
reasons and discuss the reply to the show
cause notice, but a punishment order is not
vitiated merely due to absence of detailed
reproduction if it reflects application of
mind.

2. The Constitution Bench in the
case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel,
(1985) 3 SCC 398, has emphasized that
minor procedural lapses that do not cause
prejudice to the delinquent employee or
violate the principles of natural justice
would not invalidate the order.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Chairman, LIC v. A.
Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, it was
held
that
non-mentioning
of
every
document or minor procedural lapses
cannot by themselves be grounds to
invalidate a disciplinary order unless it
causes demonstrable prejudice.

4. The Apex Court in State of
Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra,
AIR 1963 SC 779, held that substance
must prevail over form; non-mentioning of
certain procedural steps would not vitiate
the order if the essence of natural justice is
maintained.

5. While dealing with disciplinary
proceedings, the Apex Court in the case of
Managing
Director,
ECIL
v.
B.
Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, reiterated
that procedural fairness is essential, but a
disciplinary order will not be set aside
unless the procedural irregularity has
caused prejudice.

28. It is imperative to underscore that
the solemn purpose of any order is not the
pedantic perfection of form, but the faithful
administration of justice by adhering to
principles of natural justice and application
of mind. The adjudicatory process is guided
by the substance of justice rather than the
superficialities of procedure.

29. The essence of any order lies in its
ability to address the core legal and factual
controversies, to apply the law with
judicious reasoning, and to render an
equitable resolution. In the instant matter,
the punishment order has comprehensively
dealt
with
the
determinative
issues,
examined the evidence on record, and
applied the governing legal principles with
due care and deliberation.

30.
Mere
clerical
or
peripheral
omissions such as inadvertent exclusion of
dates or formal particulars do not, in any
measure, impinge upon the legitimacy or
efficacy of the order impugned, unless it is
demonstrated that such omissions have
caused prejudice or miscarriage of justice.
No such prejudice has been pleaded or
established before this Court.

31. Courts are not expected to exhibit
technical
exactitude in form to the
exclusion of justice. The doctrine of
substantial compliance applies with full
vigour in such circumstances. As long as
any order fulfils its constitutional and legal
mandate namely, the fair discussion of facts
with application of mind incidental lacunae
in presentation or form cannot be permitted
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to defeat the ends of justice. It would be
appropriate to mention that "justice is not a
slave to format, but a servant of truth."

32. This Court is of the opinion that a
punishment order cannot be held invalid
merely on the ground that it does not
specifically mention the details of the show
cause notice or the written reply submitted
by the petitioner, if the substance of both is
duly considered and discussed in the order.
Unless there is a manifest procedural
irregularity or a clear illegality apparent on
the face of the record, such minor
omissions would not render the order
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

33. In view of above, no interference
is called for and the writ petition is
dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 438
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 12082 of 2018

Anand Prakash Tripathi & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Samir Sharma
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra

Issue for consideration
Petitioners were employees of the UPSRTC,
appointed between September 1981 and May
1982-Employees who were appointed on nonpensionable posts in the corporation after
19.06.1981 and were promoted on pensionable
posts
in
the
department
even
between
1.06.1971 and 28.07.1982 were entitled to get
pension,
however,
petitioners
who
were
appointed between the said period i.e. after
19.06.1981 but before 28.07.1982 were held to
be not entitled for pension and as such it
creates two service conditions for the same
post.

Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh State Road Corporation
Employees (Other Than Officers) Service
Regualtion,1981-Pension-Validity of Cutoff Date-petitioners challenged a policy
decision after an unexplained delay of
nearly 18 years-Employees absorbed from
a pensionable establishment cannot be
equated with employees appointed under
a
non-pensionable
regime
after
the
Regulations came into force-Fixation of cutoff date 19.06.1981 for grant of pension to
employees of UPSRTC, corresponding to the
date
of
enforcement
of
the
UPSRTC
Employees(Other
than
officers)
Service
Regualtions,1981, held valid.

Held
The petitioners sought pension benefits, challenging
the Government order dated 23.10.2004, which
limited pension entitlement to employees appointed
between 01.06.1972 and 19.06.1981(the date when
the Service Regualtions,1981 came into force)-
Employees granted pension were already in service
before that date and later absorbed up to
28.07.1982, their inclusion was part of the absorption
process, not new recruitment-Petitioners were fresh
appointees, not absorbed employees, and thus
formed a separate class-The distinction was
reasonable and based on intelligible differentia,
satisfying Article 14-The court cited State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Sudhir Budakoti emhasizing that a
reasonable classification based on the source and
timing
of
appointment
does
not
violate
Article14-Court will not interefere unless the
classification is arbitrary-petition dismissed.(Para
11 to 16) (E-6)

Case law Cited
All Manipur Pensioners Assn. by its Secy. Vs St.
of Manipur & Ors (2020) 14 SCC 625, Ramesh