# Dr. Ram Khelawan Singh v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 911
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32623 of 2001
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-ram-khelawan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41267
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
912
U.P. Govt. Servant (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules 1999-Rule 4(2)-Suspension-during
pendency of Criminal proceeding-after
acquittal-the employee held-entitled for
reinstatement with all consequential
benefits,
seniority,
promotion etc.-in
view of the fact there is no provision in
Rules-against
acquittal
if
appeal
pending-how such employee treated,
hence after determination of Criminal
proceeding
the
suspension
order
automatically comes to an end.

Held: Para 6

The words "until the termination of all
proceedings relating to that charge"
occurring in the end of the above-noted
Rule evidently refer to the words "an
investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a
criminal
charge"
occurring
in
the
beginning of the said Rule. Therefore,
the
expression
"termination
of
all
proceedings relating to that charge
"means that with regard to the charge all
proceedings in the trial should come to
an end. Since the Rule is confined only to
the stage of trial and not to appellate
stage, the respondents were under a
legal duty to reinstate the petitioner in
service after the petitioner was acquitted
by
granting
all
benefits
of
service
available to the petitioner including the
arrears of salary for the period of
suspension.

## Text

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.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
912
U.P. Govt. Servant (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules 1999-Rule 4(2)-Suspension-during
pendency of Criminal proceeding-after
acquittal-the employee held-entitled for
reinstatement with all consequential
benefits,
seniority,
promotion etc.-in
view of the fact there is no provision in
Rules-against
acquittal
if
appeal
pending-how such employee treated,
hence after determination of Criminal
proceeding
the
suspension
order
automatically comes to an end.

Held: Para 6

The words "until the termination of all
proceedings relating to that charge"
occurring in the end of the above-noted
Rule evidently refer to the words "an
investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a
criminal
charge"
occurring
in
the
beginning of the said Rule. Therefore,
the
expression
"termination
of
all
proceedings relating to that charge
"means that with regard to the charge all
proceedings in the trial should come to
an end. Since the Rule is confined only to
the stage of trial and not to appellate
stage, the respondents were under a
legal duty to reinstate the petitioner in
service after the petitioner was acquitted
by
granting
all
benefits
of
service
available to the petitioner including the
arrears of salary for the period of
suspension.

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

1. The short question that arises for
consideration in this writ petition is
whether under Rule 4 (2) of U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
&
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in brief "Rules
1999'') if a government servant has been
suspended on the ground of pendency of a
criminal
charge,
whether
after
his
acquittal in the criminal trial, he is entitled
to reinstatement in service with all
benefits of service even though an appeal
has been filed by the State against the
acquittal order.

2. The facts in brief are that the
petitioner was working as Divisional
Manager, Bijnor in the U.P. Forest
Corporation. A trap was laid against the
petitioner in which he was alleged to have
accepted Rs.5000/- as illegal gratification.
Consequently,
he
was
arrested
on
13.6.2001 and an FIR was lodged and
Case Crime o. 214 of 2001 under section
7/13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 was registered against him.
Since the petitioner was in jail for more
than 48 hours, the State Government on
2.7.2001 passed an order deeming him to
have been suspended under Rule 4(3) (a)
of the Rules, 1999, and further suspending
him (the petitioner) under Rule 4{2) of
the Rules, 1999 till the pendency of the
criminal inquiry or trial against him as
stated in paragraph 3 of the suspension
order. The petitioner has been acquitted of
the criminal case by judgment and order
dated 16.9.2003 passed in Sessions Trial
No.8 of 2002 by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.3, Bijnor. Copy of the
said judgment and order dated 16.9.2003
has been filed as Annexure SA 1 to the
Third Supplementary Affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioner.

3. In paragraph 6 of the Second
Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf
of the petitioner, it is, inter-alia, stated
that no departmental enquiry/proceeding
is pending against the petitioner.

4. We have heard Sri H.R. Misra,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Ashutosh Tiwari for the petitioner and Sri
A.N. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has urged that
3 All] Dr. Ram Khelawan Singh V. State of U.P. and another
913
after the petitioner was acquitted of the
criminal charge, the suspension order
would automatically come to an end, and
the respondents were under a legal
obligation to reinstate the petitioner and
the petitioner was entitled for his entire
arrears of salary for the suspension period
including other service benefits, seniority,
promotion etc. On the other hand, Sri
A.N. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel
has filed a Supplementary Counter
Affidavit wherein it has been stated that
the petitioner had been reinstated in
service with effect from 21.12.2001 by
office
memorandum
dated
4.6.2002,
which
was
communicated
to
the
petitioner. In view of the stay order dated
21.12.2001 passed by this Court, the
petitioner was reinstated in service subject
to the decision of the writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel has further
urged that since the criminal appeal is
pending, the petitioner is not entitled for
reinstatement in service with all benefits
of service. Learned Standing Counsel has
urged that the appeal is regarded as
continuation of a trial and unless the
appeal is decided and the petitioner is
acquitted of the criminal charge in appeal,
he is not entitled to be reinstated in
service and given the benefits of service.
He has further urged that the State
Government has filed an appeal against
the acquittal of the petitioner under
Section 378 Cr.P.C.

5. On the basis of the arguments
advanced
by
the
learned
Standing
Counsel, the question that arises for
consideration is that in case a person, who
was deemed to have been suspended
under Rule 4(3)(a) of the Rules, 1999 on a
technical ground of being in jail for more
than 48 hours and was suspended under
Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 1999, during the
pendency
of
investigation/inquiry/trial
with regard to a criminal charge against
him, is acquitted in the criminal trial, then
whether, after acquittal, he is entitled for
reinstatement with all benefits of service
even though an appeal has been filed by
the State Government against the order of
the acquittal and the same is pending. It is
necessary to extract Rule 4 (2) of the
Rules 1999 as under:

"4(2) A Government servant in
respect
of,
or
against
whom
an
investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a
criminal charge, which is connected with
his position as a Government servant or
which is likely to embarrass him in the
discharge of his duties or which involves
moral turpitude, is pending, may, at the
discretion of the appointing authority or
the authority to whom the power of
suspension has been delegated under
these rules, be placed under suspension
until the termination of all proceedings
relating to that charge."

6. We have carefully examined this
Rule. It applies only to those cases where
investigation, inquiry or report relating to
a criminal charge against a government
servant is pending. Once the learned
Sessions judge passes an order, either
convicting or acquitting the person
against whom criminal charge is under
trial, the trial comes to an end. This Rule
does not postulate a situation nor provide
that in case appeal is filed by the State
against the order of acquittal of a
government servant under Section 378
Cr.P.C., even then the government servant
would remain under suspension or he
could not be reinstated even after his
acquittal by the Sessions Judge. The
words "until the termination of all
proceedings relating to that charge"
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
914
occurring in the end of the above-noted
Rule evidently refer to the words "an
investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a
criminal
charge"
occurring
in
the
beginning of the said Rule. Therefore, the
expression "termination of all proceedings
relating to that charge "means that with
regard to the charge all proceedings in the
trial should come to an end. Since the
Rule is confined only to the stage of trial
and not to appellate stage, the respondents
were under a legal duty to reinstate the
petitioner in service after the petitioner
was acquitted by granting all benefits of
service
available
to
the
petitioner
including the arrears of salary for the
period of suspension.

7. It may be mentioned that the
words "investigation", "inquiry", "trial"
and "appeal" have been used in distinct
senses in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Once Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 1999 uses
the expression "investigation, inquiry or
trial", it evidently excludes "appeal" from
its purview even if we were to accept the
submission of the learned Standing
Counsel that "appeal" is continuation of
"trial".

8. For the reasons given above, since
the petitioner has already been reinstated
in service under the interim order of this
Court with effect from 21.12.2001 by
order
dated
4.6.2002
which
was
communicated to the petitioner, Annexure
SCA-1 to the Supplementary Counter
Affidavit, he would be deemed to be
continuing in service and would be given
all benefits of service including the
arrears of salary during the suspension
period.

9. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. A writ of
certiorari is issued and the impugned
suspension order dated 2.7.2001 is
quashed with the declaration that as the
petitioner had already been acquitted on
16.9.2003, the said suspension order
automatically came to an end and the
effect of which would be that the
suspension would be deemed to be non
existent. A writ of mandamus is issued
directing the respondents to give all
service benefits to the petitioner including
the arrears of salary during the suspension
period, seniority, promotion etc. within a
period of four months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order before the respondent no. 1.

Parties shall bear their own costs.
Petition allowed.
---------