# Dr. U.S. Sinha v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 413
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27753 of 2003
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, D.P. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-u-s-sinha-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40104
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Sri V.C. Misra
Sri A.K. Shukla
Sri S.P. Gupta
Sri V. Swarup, Addl. A.G.
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226- Service
Law Suspension-enquiry by disciplinary
committee not finalized- denovo enquiry
conducted-but some charges of suit a
grave nature proved in regular enquiry-
no
interference-
called
for
petition
dismissed: AIR 1994 SC 2296 relied on.

Held- Para 25, 33

In view of the aforesaid settled legal
propositions, the Disciplinary Authority
was under an obligation to record the
reasons as to why instead of concluding
the enquiry a de novo enquiry was
required
and
whether
enquiry
had
suffered from some procedural defect or
has been conducted in violation of some
statutory provisions. It appears that
Authority has not considered this aspect
at all though it was necessary to do so
when charges of grave nature were
found proved against the petitioner and
all other formalities except taking a
decision for imposing the punishment
stood completed.

(B) Constitution of India Article 226Practice of ad hocism-service-VacanciesIn Medical Colleges should be filled in
regular
way
immediately-stop
gap
arrangements must come to an end--Tug
of war between two officials-students
and suffer patients vicariously for no
fault of theirs.

It is a fit case where the suspension
order ought to have been quashed. But
considering the gravity of the charges,
and particularly, in view of the fact that
some of the charges of grave nature
stood proved in a regular enquiry report
which had been accepted though the
Disciplinary Authority for the reasons
best known to him did not consider it
proper to conclude the enquiry by
passing an order in accordance with law.
In a larger public interest, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned
suspension order.
Case laws Referred:
1970 (1) SCC 108, 1993 (1) SCC 419, 1992 (2)
SCC 145, JT 1996 (6) SC 502, 1995 (Supply.)
SCC 374, 1998 (SC) 2118, AIR 1960 SC 806,
1993 (Suppl.) 3 SCC, 1996 (6) SCC 417,
1996(3) SCC 157, 1997 SCC (L& S) 897, AIR
1980 SC 379, AIR 1987 SC 877. AIR 1992 SC
604, AIR 1975 SC 2227, 1997 SCC (L&S) 88,
AIR 1962 Sesson 17, 1989 Lab LIC 329, AIR
1971 SC 1447, 1999 (1) SCC 733, AIR 1960 SC
992, AIR 1964 SC 1854, AIR 1971 SC 823, AIR
1997 SC 1488, 1996 (3) UPLBEC 1821, AIR
1952 SC 16, AIR 1973 SC 855, AIR 1980 319,
AIR 1985 SC 1622, 2002 (7) SCC 222.

## Text

2 All] Dr. U.S. Sinha V. State of U.P. and others
413
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE D.P. GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27753 of 2003

Dr. U.S. Sinha

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Secretary Medical
Education and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P. Sahi
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri G.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.C. Misra
Sri A.K. Shukla
Sri S.P. Gupta
Sri V. Swarup, Addl. A.G.
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226- Service
Law Suspension-enquiry by disciplinary
committee not finalized- denovo enquiry
conducted-but some charges of suit a
grave nature proved in regular enquiry-
no
interference-
called
for
petition
dismissed: AIR 1994 SC 2296 relied on.

Held- Para 25, 33

In view of the aforesaid settled legal
propositions, the Disciplinary Authority
was under an obligation to record the
reasons as to why instead of concluding
the enquiry a de novo enquiry was
required
and
whether
enquiry
had
suffered from some procedural defect or
has been conducted in violation of some
statutory provisions. It appears that
Authority has not considered this aspect
at all though it was necessary to do so
when charges of grave nature were
found proved against the petitioner and
all other formalities except taking a
decision for imposing the punishment
stood completed.

(B) Constitution of India Article 226Practice of ad hocism-service-VacanciesIn Medical Colleges should be filled in
regular
way
immediately-stop
gap
arrangements must come to an end--Tug
of war between two officials-students
and suffer patients vicariously for no
fault of theirs.

It is a fit case where the suspension
order ought to have been quashed. But
considering the gravity of the charges,
and particularly, in view of the fact that
some of the charges of grave nature
stood proved in a regular enquiry report
which had been accepted though the
Disciplinary Authority for the reasons
best known to him did not consider it
proper to conclude the enquiry by
passing an order in accordance with law.
In a larger public interest, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned
suspension order.
Case laws Referred:
1970 (1) SCC 108, 1993 (1) SCC 419, 1992 (2)
SCC 145, JT 1996 (6) SC 502, 1995 (Supply.)
SCC 374, 1998 (SC) 2118, AIR 1960 SC 806,
1993 (Suppl.) 3 SCC, 1996 (6) SCC 417,
1996(3) SCC 157, 1997 SCC (L& S) 897, AIR
1980 SC 379, AIR 1987 SC 877. AIR 1992 SC
604, AIR 1975 SC 2227, 1997 SCC (L&S) 88,
AIR 1962 Sesson 17, 1989 Lab LIC 329, AIR
1971 SC 1447, 1999 (1) SCC 733, AIR 1960 SC
992, AIR 1964 SC 1854, AIR 1971 SC 823, AIR
1997 SC 1488, 1996 (3) UPLBEC 1821, AIR
1952 SC 16, AIR 1973 SC 855, AIR 1980 319,
AIR 1985 SC 1622, 2002 (7) SCC 222.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. The present case depicts a sorry
state of government's mind and approach.
It is revealed from the facts available that
what a shabby manner the State is running
its administration. The officers of the
State instead of resolving the problems
and performing their duties, have tried to
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
414
make the situation more complex for
extraneous considerations. They had been
ex
facie
exhibiting
malice
and
partisanship. It is a case of tug of war
between two officials of a distinguished
medical college of the State. The State
administration apparently is divided into
two lobbies, each taking positive sides
with the errant teacher and staff member.
Nobody appears to take any interest
towards the ailing patients who rush to
such colleges for the amelioration of their
medical crisis.

2. The writ petition has been filed by
the officiating Principal of Motilal Nehru
Medical College, Allahabad challenging
the suspension order dated 24.6.2003 on
various grounds, including mala fides
against respondent no. 6, who is not the
senior most Professor in the Medical
College as respondent no. 1 ignored the
legitimate
claims/expectations
of
Professors
promoted
under
Personal
Promotion
Scheme
or
Career
Advancement Scheme, who according to
the petitioner, are also eligible and
entitled to officiate as Principal.

3. Facts and circumstances giving
rise to this case are that vide order dated
29.7.2000 the petitioner was required to
discharge duties of Principal, and for that,
he was not conferred any financial
benefit. It was only an honorarium, an
stop gap arrangement. However, litigation
started by one Professor S.K. Jain who
claimed that as the College had been
handed over to the Society, he was to
retire at the age of 60 and not 58, and he
succeeded in procuring an order from
Department
in
April,
2001.
Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner filed
a writ petition and obtained an interim
order from this Court. Ultimately, the writ
petition was allowed and in pursuance
thereof, petitioner continued to officiate
as Principal. Petitioner was put under
suspension vide order dated 13.6.2001.
He preferred writ petition no. 2355 of
2001. Said order of suspension dated
13.6.2001 was stayed vide order date
2.7.2001, observing that very serious
allegations of malafides have been raised,
and
prima
facie,
there
was
some
substance
in
those
allegations.
Subsequently, the order dated 14.8.2001
was passed withdrawing the financial and
administrative powers of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred
another writ petition no. 31167 of 2001,
in which operation of the order date
14.8.2001 was stayed on 21.8.2001.

4. The causa dramatis interceded
here. Complaints and counter complaints
started
between
the
petitioner
and
respondent no. 5. Regular enquiry in
pursuance of the charge sheet dated
30.6.2001 was completed by the Enquiry
Officer and he submitted the enquiry
report on 14.9.2001. The Disciplinary
Authority considered the report and
accepted the same. A copy of the said
enquiry report was furnished to the
petitioner, along with show cause notice
for imposing the punishment and for
filing the explanation to the said enquiry
report,
on
26.12.2001.
Petitioner
submitted his reply to the said show cause
notice on 31.8.2002. The Disciplinary
Authority did not consider it proper to
pass any final order and conclude the
enquiry, though charges against the
petitioner had been very serious and grave
in nature and the Enquiry Officer found
some of them proved and one or two
serious charges partially proved.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Dr. U.S. Sinha V. State of U.P. and others
415
5. A new twist was added to this
scenario. A preliminary enquiry was
conducted in a most unusual manner
unwarranted in law against respondent no.
5.
Allegations
made
against
the
respondent no. 5 were held to be not
proved, only on the basis of his own
evidence. He was pronounced innocent.
The enquiry officer made allegations
against the petitioner and advised the
Government to hold a regular enquiry
against him . Here lies the fallacy.
Another preliminary enquiry was held
against the petitioner on complaints filed
by some persons and the report thereof
was
submitted
on
17.10.2002
recommending a regular enquiry against
him. Respondent no. 1 constituted a
Committee of three officials, headed by
the Divisional Commissioner, Allahabad,
vide order dated 2.12.2002 for holding
another preliminary enquiry against the
petitioner. Report thereof was submitted
by the said Committee on 1st February,
2002, recommending for holding a regular
enquiry against him.

6. After considering the entire
material, the Disciplinary Authority did
not conclude the enquiry conducted by Sri
Faroqui but decided to hold the enquiry
afresh on all the charges including those
duly proved in the earlier enquiry with
additional charges dealt with in two
subsequent preliminary enquiries held
against the petitioner and one against the
respondent no. 5. Thus came to be passed
the impugned suspension order. Hence
this petition.

7. Sri R.N. Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that impugned suspension order has been
passed
on
malafides
and
without
application of mind without considering
that operation of the earlier suspension
order, based on mostly the same charges,
had been stayed by this Court, the
Authority did not consider it proper to
make an application before this Court to
vacate/vary/modify the said interim order,
and thus, circumvented the interim order
passed by this Court earlier on 2.7.2001
respondent nos. 5 and 7 have malice
against
the
petitioner,
and
became
instrumental for getting him suspended.
Thus the suspension order is liable to be
quashed.

8. On the contrary, Sri V.C. Misra,
Senior Advocate, Sri Vinod Swarup,
Additional Advocate General, appearing
for all the respondents except no. 7,
opposed the averments advanced on
behalf of the petitioner submitting that
this was not a fit case for interference by
this Court.

9. We have considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and examined the record, very
closely including the one produced suo
motu by Sri Swaroop.

10. The scope of interference by the
Court in suspension matters has been
examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in a catena of cases, particularly in State
of M.P. v. Sardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC
108, EV Srinivas Shastri v. Controller &
Auditor General of India, 1993 (1) SCC
419, Inspector General of Police & Anr.
V. Thavasiappan, 1992 (2) SCC 145,
Director General, ESI & Anr. v. E. Abdul
Razak, JT 1996 (6) SC 502, Scientific
Advisor to the Ministry of Defence v. S.
Denial etc., 1995 (Suppl.) SCC 374,
Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. M/s Bharat
Cooking Coal Ltd. & ors., AIR 1988 SC
2118, Delhi Cloth General Mills v.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
416
Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806, U.P.
Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
Parishad
v.
Sanjeev Rajan, 1993 (Supp) 3 SCC 483,
State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena & ors.,
(1996) 6 SCC 417, and Secretary of
Government
Prohibition
and
Excise
Department v. L. Srinivasan, 1996 (3)
SCC 157, and observed that even if a
criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time,
it is ordinarily not open to the Court to
interfere in case of suspension as it is in
the exclusive domain of the competent
Authority who can always review its
order of suspension being an inherent
power conferred upon him by the
provisions of Article 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising
such a power, the Authority can consider
the case of an employee for revoking the
suspension order, if satisfied that the
criminal
case
pending
would
be
concluded after an unusual delay for no
fault of the employee concerned.

11. In the State of Orissa v. Vimal
Kumar Mohanty, AIR 1994 SC 2296, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under: -

"....When an appointing Authority
or the Disciplinary Authority seeks to
suspend the employee... the order of
suspension would be passed taking into
consideration
the
gravity
of
the
misconduct sought to be inquired into or
investigated and the nature of evidence
placed before the appointing Authority
and on application of the mind by the
Disciplinary
Authority.
Appointing
Authority
or
Disciplinary
Authority
should consider the above aspects and
decide whether it is expedient to keep an
employee
under
suspension
pending
aforesaid action. It would not be as an
administrative routine or an automatic
order to suspend an employee. It should
be on consideration of the gravity of the
alleged misconduct or the nature of the
allegations imputed to the delinquent
employee. The Court or the Tribunal must
consider each case on its own facts and no
general law should be laid down in that
behalf....In other words, it is to refrain
him to avail further opportunity to
perpetuate the alleged misconduct or to
remove
the
impression
among
the
members of service that dereliction of
duty will pay fruits and the offending
employee may get away even pending
inquiry without any impediment or to
provide an opportunity to the delinquent
officer
to
scuttle
the
inquiry
or
investigation to win over the other
witnesses or the delinquent having had an
opportunity in office to impede the
progress of the investigation or inquiry
etc. But as Authority earlier, each case
must be considered depending on the
nature of the allegations, gravity of the
situation and the indelible impact it
creates on the service for the continuation
of the delinquent employee in service
pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry
or investigation. It would be another thing
if the action is actuated by mala fide,
arbitrarily or for ulterior purpose. The
suspension must be a step in add to the
ultimate result of the investigation or
inquiry. The Authority also should keep
in mind public interest of the impact of
the delinquent's continuation in office
while facing departmental inquiry or a
trial of a criminal charge."

12. In Allahabad Bank & Anr. vs.
Deepak Kumar Bhola, 1997 SCC (L& S)
897, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
in
case
involving
serious
charges,
suspension order should not generally be
interfered. However, the decision of the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Dr. U.S. Sinha V. State of U.P. and others
417
competent authority should be based on
material collected during investigation/
inquiry.

13. The power of suspension should
not be exercised in an arbitrary manner
and without any reasonable ground.
Suspension should be made only in a case
where there is a strong prima facie case
against the employee and the allegations
involving
moral
turpitude,
grave
misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to
carry out the orders of superior Authority
are there, where the contents of strong
prima facie case against him, if proved,
would ordinarily result in his dismissal or
removal from service. The Authority
should also consider taking into account
all the available material as to whether in
a given case, it is advisable to permit him
to continue not to perform his duties in
the office or his retention in office is
likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry.

14. If the Court, after considering
the evidence on record, comes to the
conclusion that it is not such a case,
which may justify the Authority to keep
the employee under suspension for a
prolonged period, the Court may interfere.
However, suspension may not be revoked
in a case where there is an apprehension
of tampering with the evidence in a
domestic enquiry/criminal prosecution or
retention of the employee in the office is
considered to be injurious to public
interest.

15. We are of the considered opinion
after
perusing
the
record
and
on
submissions
made
by
the
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
that
undoubtedly, petitioner has not been dealt
with
in
accordance
with
law
and
allegations of mala fide made by the
petitioner are not without substance. But
whatever may be the magnitude of mala
fide, ill-will or motivation, if in addition
thereto, there is some substance in the
complaints/allegations, the Court should
keep its hands off. (Vide State of Bihar
vs. J.A.C. Saldanna, AIR 1980 SC 379,
Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar,
AIR 1987 SC 877, and State of Haryana
& ors. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors, AIR 1992
SC 604).

16. In view of this peculiar factual
situation, we did not consider it necessary
to examine the allegations of mala fide
against respondent no. 7.

17. In the regular enquiry held
against the petitioner, many of the charges
of serious gravity stood proved fully and
some partially. Though the Disciplinary
Authority did not finalise the enquiry, but
it is evident from the said report that
allegations against him are not without
substance.

18. We are unable to comprehend
what impelled the State to dilate the
action on the said enquiry report. We
visualize it to be for pulling to string from
some quarter in favour of the petitioner or
another party. Nepotism and parochial
interests carry so much weight as to
paralise the administration of the medical
college to its total disruption and peril.

19. Thus, for this reason, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned
suspension order.

20. Though there is no occasion for
us to proceed further, but the facts
situation involved in this case compel us
to speak before parting with the case.
Petitioner
had
been
officiating
as
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
418
Principal for the last three years. The
State Government failed for one reason or
the other to appoint a regular Principal in
the Medical College and allowed running
of its affair by a stop-gap arrangement,
which cannot be a sign of governance at
all, what to talk of good governance.

21. Once the enquiry report, after a
full throat enquiry, had been submitted by
the Enquiry Officer Shri Farooqui, there
was
no
justification
for
the
State
Government not to conclude the enquiry,
and to initiate a fresh enquiry on the same
charges when most of the charges stood
proved
against
the
petitioner
and
Disciplinary Authority had nothing to do
except to pass a final order as all the other
legal requirements stood complied with.
The issue of holding the fresh enquiry has
been subject matter of judicial scrutiny
time and again.

22.

De-novo
enquiry
should
generally be directed, if the Authority is
satisfied that enquiry stood vitiated for
non-compliance of the principles of
natural justice or for some other statutory
requirement, or evidence could not be
properly recorded. For directing enquiry
afresh on the same charge, Authority is
required to record reasons, otherwise it
may become a tool for harassment of the
delinquent, in the hands of such Authority
and in that case, it would amount to a
mala fide colourable exercise of power.
(Vide State of Assam & Anr. Vs. J.N.
Roy Biswas, AIR 1975 SC 2227; State of
Punjab Vs. Kashmir Singh, 1997 SCC
(L&S) 88; Keshab Chand Sharma Vs.
State of Assam & ors., AIR 1962 Assam
17; Mohd. Abdul Alim Vs. Director
Training Institute (CST & MP) Survey of
India Lab & IC 1682; and Dinesh
Chandra Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal
& ors., 1989 Lab & IC 329).

23. A Constitution Bench of
Supreme Court in K.R. Dev Vs. The
Collectorate of Central Excise, Shillong,
AIR 1971 SC 1447 held that in absence of
any statutory rule holding a de novo
enquiry is not permissible. In case
Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion
that there has been some defect in the
enquiry conducted by an Enquiry Officer,
it may direct the said officer to conduct
further enquiries in respect of that matter.
But it can neither change the Enquiry
Officer nor it can ask to hold the enquiry
de novo on the same charges. In the said
case the Apex Court interpreted the
provisions of Central Civil Services
(Classification Control & Appeal) Rules,
1957.

24. In Union of India & ors. Vs.
Thayagarajan, 1999 (1) SCC 733, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting
the provisions of Central Reserve Police
Force Rules, 1955 considered the aspect
of de novo enquiry and observed that if a
Disciplinary Authority comes to the
conclusion that while holding the enquiry
there has been a fundamental procedural
defect in taking evidence, it may order a
fresh enquiry.

25. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid settled legal propositions, the
Disciplinary Authority was under an
obligation to record the reasons as to why
instead of concluding the enquiry a de
novo enquiry was required and whether
enquiry
had
suffered
from
some
procedural defect or has been conducted
in violation of some statutory provisions.
It
appears
that
Authority
has
not
considered this aspect at all though it was
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Dr. U.S. Sinha V. State of U.P. and others
419
necessary to do so when charges of grave
nature were found proved against the
petitioner and all other formalities except
taking a decision for imposing the
punishment stood completed.

26. For holding preliminary enquiry
against respondent no. 5, Shri Lav Verma
was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. In
his report, referred to above, it has been
specifically mentioned by him that there
was too much politics and two officers
has been in direct confrontation and were
in the habit of making allegations and
counter allegations against each other. It
spoiled the atmosphere of the institution.
He
submitted
the
report
not
only
observing that prima facie, allegations had
no substance but also gave a finding that
charges were not proved against him
and he was not guilty (Nirdosh). This
enquiry was only an eye wash, as became
apparent from the manner of its conduct.
The finding of not guilty in favour of
respondent no. 5 was recorded on mere
denial of the allegations by the said
delinquent though in law it is not even
necessary to give opportunity of hearing
to the delinquent while holding the
preliminary enquiry for the reason that the
purpose of holding preliminary enquiry is
to find out whether there is any substance
in the allegations for holding regular
inquiry. Report itself is indicative of total
lack of knowledge of the procedure on the
part of the Enquiry Officer, and if it is not
so then it speaks in volumes of the
administrative corruptibility. The Enquiry
Officer instead of trying to collect
evidence to verify the correctness of
charges, by adopting this novel method
how percolated greater interest in hushing
it up. The mala fide of the administration
is clear as a crystal. Unwarranted and
uncalled for remarks were made against
the petitioner pronouncing him guilty
though it was not object of the said
preliminary
enquiry.
The
precipitate
partisanship is accountable from the very
manner in which the preliminary enquiry
was manipulated. The statement of the
delinquent at this stage has no legal
sanctity.
Purpose
of
holding
the
preliminary enquiry is not to punish the
delinquent on the said report nor he can
be punished on the basis of such a report,
rather its purpose is to find out as to
whether the circumstances and allegations
require to hold a regular enquiry (Vide
Amlendu Ghosh Vs. District Traffic
Superintendent, North-Eastern Railways
Katiyar, AIR 1960 SC 992; Champak Lal
Chaman Lal Shah Vs. Union of India &
ors. AIR 1964 SC 1854, Government of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs & ors.
Vs. Tarak Nath Ghosh, AIR 1971 SC 823
and Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerathakhar
Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., AIR
1997 SC 2148).

27. The apathy and antagonism of
the enquiry against the petitioner does not
end here. Sri Lav Verma recommended
that the services of the respondent no. 5
were required in the Medical College,
Allahabad and allegations against the
present petitioner stood proved. We fail
to understand as to how Sri Lav Verma
dared to record such findings against the
petitioner
and
who
authorized
and
inspired him to give an advice to the
Government as to whether the services of
respondent no. 5 were required in the
Medical College, Allahabad. Though the
terms of reference of the said enquiry are
not before us, however, it appears that he
exceeded the terms of reference clearly
and abused the authority so conferred by
introducing scurrilous remarks against Dr.
Sinha, the petitioner in his report. It could
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
420
not be called bona fide by any means. The
Disciplinary Authority has taken this
report also into consideration against the
petitioner without realizing that such a
role has never been assigned to Sri Lav
Verma as he was appointed Enquiry
Officer only against respondent no. 5 and
the remarks so made by him against the
petitioner, may be for some extraneous
consideration. We have no compunction
in observing that this enquiry by Sri Lav
Verma was held in a most unlawful
manner. The pernicious intention is not
simply discernible but is writ large at the
face of it. In such an atmosphere, people
attached feel suffocation as it not only
breeds frustration but corruption also.
Eligible and suitable candidates feeling
hapless commit suicide out of frustration
while those who can lick the boots of the
bosses succeed in their mission. It goes in
a deeper mileage of the administration.
(vide Km. Poonam Srivastava vs. U.P.
Industrial
Co-operative
Association,
Kanpur & Ors. (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1821).

28. Another Enquiry Committee was
set up by the Disciplinary Authority
appointing the Divisional Commissioner,
Allahabad
as
its
Chairman.
The
preliminary enquiry report submitted by
the said Committee is against the
petitioner. But , contents of the covering
letter
sent
by
the
Divisional
Commissioner
to
the
Disciplinary
Authority is not merely astonishing but
shocking also as he doubted the integrity
of one of the members of the Enquiry
Committee and made remark that he was
in collusion with the petitioner. This was
a three member Committee. If he was of
such an opinion he ought to have reported
to the Disciplinary Authority in advance
before the conclusion of the enquiry. His
failure to act in a legal manner thus
exposes a particular frame of mind of the
State's governance in this matter. If such a
letter was received by the Disciplinary
Authority it became his solemn duty to
examine as to whether such a report was
worth
acceptance.
Thus,
the
final
direction by the competent authority
suffers from serious vices.

29. The respondent no. 6 has been
made the officiating Principal of the
College and there is nothing on record
produced by the learned Additional
Advocate General Shri Vinod Swaroop to
show as to whether the Competent
Authority has applied its mind to the
statutory requirement and as to whether
the
Professors appointed
under the
Personal Promotion Scheme or Career
Advancement Scheme are also eligible for
promotion or officiation on this post as it
is submitted in the petition that he is not
the senior most Professor if other category
of
Professors
are
also
taken
into
consideration.

30. The record makes it clear that
orders have been passed by the authorities
concerned arbitrarily without keeping in
mind the statutory requirement.

31. Power vested by the State in a
Public Authority should be viewed as in
trust coupled with duty to be exercised in
larger public and social interest. Power is
to be exercised strictly adhering to the
statutory provisions and fact situation of a
case. "Public Authorities cannot play fast
and loose with the powers vested in
them." Decision taken in arbitrary manner
contradicts the principle of legitimate
expectation. Authority is under legal
obligation
to
exercise
the
power
reasonably and in good faith to effectuate
the purpose for which power stood
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Dr. U.S. Sinha V. State of U.P. and others
421
conferred. In this context, 'in good faith'
means for legitimate reasons. It must be
exercised bona fide for the purpose and
for none other. (vide Commissioner of
Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji,
AIR 1952 SC 16, Sirsi Municipality Vs.
Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC
855, The State of Punjab & Anr. Vs.
Gurdial Singh & ors., AIR 1980 SC 319.
The
Collector
(Distt.
Magistrate)
Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal,
AIR
1985
SC
1622,
and
Delhi
Administration Vs. Manohar Lal, (2002)
7 SCC 222).

32. In fact, the petitioner has
challenged the impugned suspension
order dated 24.6.2003, by which the
Disciplinary Authority has passed the
order of suspension and is attached in the
Directorate of Medical Education and
Training, Lucknow. However, there is
another order of the same date, i.e.
24.6.2003,
therein
while
issuing
a
direction for appointing the respondent
no. 6 as an officiating Principal, it has
been directed that Dr. Sinha will continue
to work on his substantive post of
Professor, Forensic Medicine in the same
Medical College. The orders have been
signed by the same officer but gives a
contrary impression. This shows not
proper application of mind by the
authority concerned.

33. To sum up, prima facie, we are of
the considered opinion that the attitude of
the Authorities against the petitioner has
been vindictive. Allegations of mala fide
are prima facie preponderous. Authorities
holding preliminary enquiry had not been
fair to him and we have no hesitation to
hold that they were biased and had acted
for extraneous considerations, and it is a
fit case where the suspension order ought
to have been quashed. But considering the
gravity of the charges, and particularly, in
view of the fact that some of the charges
of grave nature stood proved in a regular
enquiry report which had been accepted
though the Disciplinary Authority for the
reasons best known to him did not
consider it proper to conclude the enquiry
by passing an order in accordance with
law. In a larger public interest, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned
suspension order. But the Court being
custodian of law cannot remain a silent
spectator and close its eyes where the
mismanagement
by
the
so
called
administration, is stinking of malignancy
and its officers shamelessly side with one
of the parties in a tug of war which
spoiled
the
educational
system
irretrievably of the Medical College and
the students and patients to suffer
vicariously for no fault of theirs. This type
of a situation if allowed to prevail, just as
in the present case, it is bound to
contaminate and pollute the otherwise
ought to be homogeine environment of
such institutions. These institutions were
created to impart medical education and
not dirty politics. The ethics behind the
medical profession is sanguine. It is lost
completely to wilderness in such an
atmosphere and climate. Apart from, it
causes frustrations amongst the deserving
teachers who are devoted to their
obligation very seriously. It will deter
them from discharging their duties with
sincerity
and
devotion.
Groupism
amongst would raise its ugly head. As the
necessary parties, particularly, those who
held preliminary enquiry in such an
arbitrary and illegal manner, are not
before us, we are not in a position to
speak against them as it would violate the
principles
of
natural
justice.
The
observation made hereinabove are based
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
422
prima facie on an examination of the
record submitted by Sri Vinod Swarup,
learned Additional Advocate General to
the Court. We do not desire to direct any
harsh measures ourselves against any
errant
officer
who
held
both
the
preliminary
enquiries
ourselves.
We
instead seriously advice the learned Chief
Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to
examine the reports submitted in this case
himself and to consider as to whether the
affairs of the State can be run in such a
casual and lackluster manner. Has the
government of this State decided to play
with the life of the youth of this nation
who are trying to become medicos to
serve the masses, the manner in which the
matter has been dealt with is most
deplorable. We take serious notice of it.
The learned Chief Secretary is requested
to review the whole issue after going
through the record including the so called
preliminary reports and order to hold de
novo enquiry on the allegations on which
regular enquiry had been completed. The
Government is directed to take the
necessary steps to fill up the vacancies
lying
unfilled
in
legal
manner
immediately. Such stop-gap arrangements
must come to an end forthwith in all the
Medical Colleges of the State.

34. With these observation, petition
stands dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE V.S. BAJPAI, J.

Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Petition No.
43233 of 2002

Bandoo Bedia and others ...Petitioners

 (Detenue/In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.N. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh (Sr.S.C.)
A.G.A.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Detention Order-Challenged-Plea of law
and
Order
and
Public
Order-Major
difference between the two-discusseddetention order the result of misuse of
power by the Police personnel-highly
condemsed direction issued to release by
forthwith.

Held- Para 14 sa

It is now well realised that the line of
demarcation between 'law and order'
and 'public order' is very marginal. Any
act of violence that creates an offence
naturally poses problem first to law and
order. Every offence necessarily does not
come within the purview of 'public order'
by
virtue
of
it
being
an
offence
committed by an individual or a group of
individuals. It would fall within this clan
if its ramifications have the capability
and potential to disrupt the peace and
tranquility of that area wherein the
offence was so committed. If it, by its
very
nature,
succeeds
in
causing
disruption in normal mode of living and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in