# Gopal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 444
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-10
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 9166 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gopal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52873
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

CIVIL LAW - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226, - Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - Rule 10(2) - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant's
Conduct
Rules,
1956- Writ Petition - The petitioner was
involved in a dispute over the charge of
Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Construction
Division-II, Lalitpur - The Engineer-in-Chief
ordered that the charge be handed over to
Chhatrapati Singh, but Bhagirathi Singh refused
to comply, leading the petitioner to enforce the
directive
-
subsequently,
a
manipulated
complaint
resulted
in
Chhatrapati
Singh's
suspension, prompting him to file a writ petition,
which led to an interim order - While responding
to the writ petition through a narrative para no.
11
remained
unanswered
-
Among
five
responsible officers who vetted the narrative,
only the petitioner was issued a show cause
notice, alleging service misconduct - The
petitioner argued that the charges were
baseless and motivated by malice, while the
respondents claimed misuse of power and
collusion - The court found no substantive
evidence proving that the petitioner deliberately
ensured a deficient narrative - In the absence of
material linking the petitioner to the omission of
para no. 11, the impugned order, which held
him guilty of misconduct, lacked merit - because
mala fides has not been urged against a
definitive persons with sufficient pleadings or
the man impleaded eo nomine - held, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and must
perish - petition succeeded and is allowed.(Para
- 19, 24, 25, 26, 28)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

## Text

444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
basis of pay of the petitioner of Rs.56,200/-
along with all consequential benefits.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 444
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 9166 of 2024

Gopal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dinesh Mishra, Prabhakar Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

CIVIL LAW - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226, - Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - Rule 10(2) - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant's
Conduct
Rules,
1956- Writ Petition - The petitioner was
involved in a dispute over the charge of
Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Construction
Division-II, Lalitpur - The Engineer-in-Chief
ordered that the charge be handed over to
Chhatrapati Singh, but Bhagirathi Singh refused
to comply, leading the petitioner to enforce the
directive
-
subsequently,
a
manipulated
complaint
resulted
in
Chhatrapati
Singh's
suspension, prompting him to file a writ petition,
which led to an interim order - While responding
to the writ petition through a narrative para no.
11
remained
unanswered
-
Among
five
responsible officers who vetted the narrative,
only the petitioner was issued a show cause
notice, alleging service misconduct - The
petitioner argued that the charges were
baseless and motivated by malice, while the
respondents claimed misuse of power and
collusion - The court found no substantive
evidence proving that the petitioner deliberately
ensured a deficient narrative - In the absence of
material linking the petitioner to the omission of
para no. 11, the impugned order, which held
him guilty of misconduct, lacked merit - because
mala fides has not been urged against a
definitive persons with sufficient pleadings or
the man impleaded eo nomine - held, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and must
perish - petition succeeded and is allowed.(Para
- 19, 24, 25, 26, 28)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against
an order passed by the State Government
dated 24.05.2024, inflicting the petitioner
with the penalty of censure after a show
cause notice for an act of service
misconduct.

2. The petitioner entered service of the
Department
of
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources as an Assistant Engineer way
back on 10.02.1991. He was promoted to
the post of an Executive Engineer on
19.04.2000 and then as a Superintending
Engineer on 20.01.2009. Still later, on
01.06.2018, he was promoted as a Chief
Engineer, Level-II. He got a further
promotion to the position of Chief
Engineer, Level-I on 30.06.2022. As
appears from the record, one Chhatrapati
Singh, Executive Engineer, Research and
Planning
Division-I,
Sinchai
Bhawan
Annexe, Lucknow was directed to be given
additional
charge
of
the
Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Construction DivisionII, Lalitpur by an order of the Engineer-inChief and Head of the Department,
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources
Department, U.P. This charge was in
addition to his duties at Lucknow and the
arrangement was made for a period of six
months until a regular incumbent was
posted. The order was passed by the
Engineer-in-Chief
in
the
interest
of
1 All. Gopal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
445
government work. When the Engineer-inChief passed his orders dated 15.03.2023,
these were duly circulated from the
Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Water
Resources, Government of U.P., Lucknow
down to the Executive Engineer, Computer
Centre, Irrigation and Water Resources
Department, Lucknow, including other
officials concerned.

3. At the time, when the order dated
15.03.2023 was passed by the Engineer-inChief, one Bhagirathi Singh was posted as
the
Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Construction Division-I, Lalitpur. He had
been given additional charge as Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Construction DivisionII, Lalitpur. This was, to all seeming, done
by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation
Construction Circle, Jhansi, who is said to
be the controlling authority and the
immediate superior of the Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Construction
Divisions-I and II at Lalitpur. When
Chhatrapati Singh proceeded to take charge
as
Executive
Engineer,
Construction
Division-II in compliance with the order of
the
Engineer-in-Chief
and
contacted
Bhagirathi
Singh,
holding
additional
charge,
Bhagirathi
Singh
refused
to
handover charge to Chhatrapati Singh.
Chhatrapati Singh wrote to the petitioner
on 16.03.2023 that charge of Irrigation
Construction
Division-II,
Lalitpur
be
directed to be handed over to him in
compliance with the Engineer-in-Chief's
order.

4. It is also the petitioner's case that
this matter was brought to the notice of the
Engineer-in-Chief, who instructed the
petitioner to ensure compliance of his
order
dated
15.03.2023.
In
the
circumstances, the petitioner passed an
order dated 16.03.2023, directing charge
of Irrigation Construction Division-II,
Lalitpur to be handed over to Chhatrapati
Singh in compliance with the Engineer-inChief's order. The petitioner has pleaded
at this juncture that Bhagirathi Singh, the
Executive Engineer, who was holding
charge
of
Irrigation
Construction
Division-II was in collusion with Rajpal
Singh, Chief Engineer, Level-II and the
two, in order to ensure that Chhatrapati
Singh was kept out of way, caused a
manipulated complaint through six junior
engineers and four assistant engineers to
be made against Chhatrapati Singh on
17.07.2023.
These
facts
have
been
asserted in paragraph No.8 of the writ
petition
and then
there are
further
allegations of malice at work in paragraph
No.9, where it is said that there existed all
pervasive
in-house
politics
against
Chhatrapati Singh, which the petitioner
noticed and wrote about in his favour on
28.07.2023, certifying his good work and
the ill-doings of Bhagirathi Singh. The
letter dated 28.07.2023 was addressed to
the Engineer-in-Chief and Head of the
Department,
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources, U.P.

5. Chhatrapati Singh was placed under
suspension pending inquiry vide order
dated 04.08.2023. He challenged the said
order by means of Writ-A No.13224 of
2023.
This
Court
vide
order
dated
29.08.2023 passed in the last mentioned
writ petition stayed the suspension order
dated
04.08.2023
and
directed
that
Chhatrapati Singh will continue to serve on
the post in the same manner as he did
before the order impugned. The petitioner
has pleaded by way of quotation in
paragraph No.13 of the writ petition,
paragraph No.11 of Writ-A No.13224 of
2023, instituted by Chhatrapati Singh
against
his
suspension
from
service.
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Paragraph No.11 of Chhatrapati Singh's
writ petition quoted as aforesaid reads:

"11. That on 28.07.2023 head of
the department in the hierarchy wrote letter
in favour of petitioner on the strength of 3
months performance. Photo copy of letter
dated 28.07.2023 of respondent no.3 is
being filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO.-6 to this writ petition."

6. After the aforesaid stay order was
granted by this Court on 29.08.2023, a
notice was issued to the respondents,
obliging them to file a counter affidavit. A
narrative for the purpose had to be drawn
up by the respondents' office. It was
prepared by the respondents, but did not
carry any reply to paragraph No.11 of WritA No.13224 of 2023, instituted by
Chhatrapati
Singh.
The
narrative
as
aforesaid was first signed by the Executive
Engineer,
then
endorsed
by
the
Superintending Engineer, next by the Chief
Engineer, Level-II, thereafter the petitioner,
and finally the Head of the Department, to
wit, the Engineer-in-Chief.

7. It appears that on the basis of the
order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the
petitioner, whereby he directed Chhatrapati
Singh to assume charge of Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Construction DivisionII, Lalitpur and the unanswered paragraph
No.11 of Writ-A No.13224 of 2023 in the
Department's narrative, a show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner on 16.11.2023,
proposing to proceed against him under
Rule
10(2)
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, 'the Rules
of 1999'). The petitioner submitted a
prompt reply to the show cause on
04.12.2023, explaining his position in
worthy detail. Shortly afterwards, the State
Government passed the impugned order
dated 24.05.2024, punishing the petitioner
with the impugned censure.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated
24.05.2024, the present writ petition has
been instituted.

9. In answer to the notice of motion
issued on 08.07.2024, a counter affidavit
has been filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2, to which the petitioner has
filed a rejoinder.

10. When the petition came up on
23.07.2024, the parties having exchanged
affidavits, it was admitted to hearing,
which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was
reserved.

11. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of
the respondents.

12. It is argued by Mr. Prabhakar
Awasthi that there is absolutely no charge
disclosed against the petitioner worth the
name, on the foot of which he could be
punished. He submits that there has to be
some
act,
constituting
misconduct,
attributable to an employee, before he can
be proceeded with against under the Rules
of 1999 and then some tangible material or
evidence in support of the charge of
misconduct must exist, on the basis of
which, the respondents may draw a
possible inference about the employee's
guilt. Mr. Awasthi urges that here is a case
where the petitioner gave effect to the order
dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Engineerin-Chief and Head of the Department,
Irrigation and Water Resources, U.P. to
give additional charge of the position of
1 All. Gopal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
447
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction
Division-II, Lalitpur. He has drawn the
Court's attention to the order of the
Engineer-in-Chief, annexed as Annexure
No.2 to the writ petition.

13. The next charge is about a nontraverse of paragraph No.11 of Writ-A
No.13224 of 2023, filed by Chhatrapati
Singh. Mr. Awasthi submits that the
respondents' narrative was drawn up by the
office and first signed by the Executive
Engineer, followed by the Superintending
Engineer, then by the Chief Engineer,
Level-II, after which the petitioner signed
it, and, it was finally signed by the
Engineer-in-Chief. None of the other
official's conduct in signing that narrative,
which did not answer paragraph No.11 of
the
writ
petition,
has
been
found
blameworthy. The petitioner has been
singled out to be foisted with the charge of
not answering paragraph No.11 of the writ
petition filed by Chhatrapati Singh. He
submits that the non-traverse in a narrative
signed by five officers, three junior to the
petitioner and one senior, hardly constitutes
any kind of a misconduct. He further urges
that
for
these
non-existing
acts
or
omissions of misconduct attributed to him,
there is no material or evidence in support
to infer a possible guilt for the petitioner.
He castigates the order impugned as one
that is perverse, founded on non-existing
charges/ allegations of misconduct and one
that proceeds in the absence of any material
or evidence to infer guilt for the petitioner.
In addition, it is argued by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the order
impugned is actuated by mala fides. He
submits, referring to details of the seniority
list of officers in the cadre of Chief
Engineer Level-I, that he is amongst three
officers, now eligible to be promoted as
Engineer-in-Chief, to wit, Akhilesh Kumar
Sachan, Sandeep Kumar and the petitioner
himself. He urges that the impugned order
has been passed deliberately in order to
disqualify him from consideration for
promotion, which he would otherwise
surely earn. The petitioner is scheduled to
retire on 31.03.2025 and the entire effort to
castigate his conduct is actuated by mala
fides.

14.
Ms.
Monika
Arya,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel has, on
the other hand, argued that the charges
against the petitioner are well-founded. She
submits that Bhagirathi Singh, who was
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction
Division-I, Lalitpur, was given additional
charge of Division-II as he was close at
hand. This decision was taken by the
Superintending
Engineer,
Irrigation
Construction Circle, Jhansi, who is the
Controlling
Authority.
She
submits
emphatically that Chhatrapati Singh neither
contacted
Bhagirathi
Singh
to
take
additional charge of the post of Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Construction DivisionII, Lalitpur in compliance with the
Engineer-in-Chief's order dated 15.03.2023
nor apprised the Controlling Authority i.e.
the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation
Construction Circle, Jhansi. Instead, he
approached the petitioner directly and made
an application for handing over the
additional charge to him. It is on the said
application that the petitioner passed the
order of 16th March, 2023, directing
Chhatrapati Singh to assume additional
charge
of
the
Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Construction
Division-II,
Lalitpur, without affording any opportunity
to Bhagirathi Singh. She has invited the
attention of the Court in this regard to
paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit,
where this case is pleaded. She submits that
the petitioner and Chhatrapati Singh were
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in collusion, as the latter was never refused
additional charge of Executive Engineer,
Irrigation
Construction
Division-II,
Lalitpur nor any undue delay was there in
carrying out the Engineer-in-Chief's order.
The petitioner misused his official power,
jumped the line of authority, bypassing the
Superintending
Engineer
and
himself
directed Chhatrapati Singh, by his order of
16th March, 2023, to take additional charge
of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation
Construction
Division-II,
Lalitpur.
Chhatrapati Singh misconducted himself in
office
and
harassed
his
subordinate
engineers, demanding bribes from them
and threatening to spoil their ACRs, if they
did not yield to his demand. This led the
subordinate engineers to complain against
Chhatrapati Singh to the Chief Engineer,
Project
Betwa,
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources Department, Jhansi through their
representation dated 03.07.2023. It is
signed by a number of assistant and junior
engineers, at least ten, as the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel points
out. This paved way for Chatrapati Singh's
suspension form service.

15. Now, when Chhatrapati Singh
challenged his order of suspension and a
notice was issued by this Court, in the
narrative that was prepared, the petitioner
was said to be grossly negligent in
discharging his duties. He did not take care
to answer paragraph No.11 of the writ
petition. In collusion with Chhatrapati
Singh, he signed the narrative and sent it to
the learned Chief Standing Counsel's office
for drafting a counter affidavit. This shows
carelessness on the petitioner's part, for
which he has been punished, in addition to
the other misdemeanour. Ms. Arya argues
that
after
due
consideration
of
the
petitioner's reply, he has been punished. It
is not the province of this Court to reassess
evidence and return a finding if the
evidence was weighty enough to support
the conclusions reached by the primary
decision maker.

16. We have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by learned Counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

17. There are two charges, or so to
speak, allegations, on the foot of which the
petitioner has been punished. The petitioner
says that these are non-allegations or acts
or omissions that do not constitute any
misconduct
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956
(for short, 'the Rules of 1956') or any rule
defining misconduct. The first charge or
allegation, as already said in detail, is about
the petitioner passing an order dated
16.03.2023, directing Chhatrapati Singh to
take additional charge as the Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Construction DivisionII, Lalitpur. It is said that this is a
misconduct, because the petitioner was not
the
Executive
Engineer's
Controlling
Authority. It was the Superintending
Engineer at Jhansi. The petitioner has been
attributed some kind of a motive in
jumping the line of authority or control and
passing
an
order
himself,
directing
Chhatrapati Singh to join in compliance
with the Engineer-in-Chief's order dated
15.03.2023, ordering the additional charge
of
Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Construction Division-II, Lalitpur to be
given to Chhatrapati Singh.

18. There is no denial of the fact that
the Engineer-in-Chief did pass an order,
which is on record, dated 15.03.2023,
directing the additional charge of the
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction
Division-II, Lalitpur to be given to
Chhatrapati Singh, depriving Bhagirathi
1 All. Gopal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
449
Singh of that charge. It is said that
Chhatrapati
Singh
did
not
approach
Bhagirathi Singh or the Superintending
Engineer, and instead, directly approached
the petitioner, who passed the offending
order dated 16.03.2023. Gauging the
conduct of parties and their relative
positions as officials of the Department,
there is no earthly reason for Chhatrapati
Singh not to have asked Bhagirathi Singh
to handover charge. Even if he did not ask
Bhagirathi Singh to handover charge in
compliance with the Engineer-in-Chief's
order
or
did
not
approach
the
Superintending
Engineer
in
the
first
instance, but the petitioner, who enforced
the Engineer-in-Chief's order by his order
of 16th March, 2023, it is no blameworthy
conduct constituting any kind of service
misconduct that may invite punishment for
the petitioner.

19. At best for the respondents, it
could be said that it was some kind of
indiscretion. That too sometimes is difficult
to say, in the nature of things, that obtain
when official functions are discharged.
Many things may come to the notice of a
superior officer, which impels him to act in
a particular way, that may look from the
outside to an objective and non-partisan
eye to be indiscreet or odd. But, a decision
taken by a superior official to act in a
particular way or pass an order in the
discharge of his official functions, that is
per se not illegal, would be no kind of
misconduct. It is the decision of an officer
in the discharge of his functions, who
would have knowledge of many things to
effectively discharge his duties as a
superior official. Even if there is a slight
overstep under such circumstances, it is no
more than the innate byproduct of human
fallibilities, when placed in a position of
authority and charged with responsibility
attached to the office. Every petty lapse or
indiscretion done bona fide cannot be
condemned as misconduct.

20. Perhaps, it is for the reason last
mentioned that the respondents have urged
that the order dated 16.03.2023 was passed
by the petitioner in connivance with
Chhatrapati Singh. There is, however, no
material to show that there was any
connivance. After all, the decision to give
additional charge to Chhatrapati Singh was
taken by the Engineer-in-Chief, whose
conduct has not been found blameworthy at
all. The order of the Engineer-in-Chief had
to be implemented by one and all,
including the Superintending Engineer at
Jhansi or the Chief Engineer of the project.
If the petitioner acted to enforce the said
order,
may
be
bypassing
the
Superintending Engineer, by the said fact
alone, no inference of a collusion between
Chhatrapti Singh and the petitioner can be
drawn. The respondents' inference that
there was some kind of a connivance
between the petitioner and Chhatrapati
Singh, indeed, appears to be based more on
conjecture and some premeditation to
penalize the petitioner.

21.
There
is
another
angle
to
understand, which the respondents have
ignored, why the petitioner acted with
seeming haste in enforcing the order of the
Engineer-in-Chief
dated
15.03.2023
himself. There is a specific case not only
pleaded in paragraph No.22 of the writ, but
also in the petitioner's reply to the show
cause notice dated 04.12.2023. It reads:

"जब द्वैत कायार्ार हस्ताींतरण से
र्ी श्री र्ागीरथ अधििासी असर्यींता द्वारा
स्पटट इनकार कर ददया गया तो यह
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
प्रकरण प्रमुख असर्यन्ता (ववर्ागाध्यक्ष) के
सींज्ञान में आया और उन्होंने मुझे तनदेसित
ककया कक में तत्काल उनके आदेि ददनाींक15.03.2023 का अनुपालन सुतनजचचत करूीं।
ऐसी जस्थतत में मैंने तनयमानुसार द्वैत
कायार्ार हस्ताींतरण िारण (Assume) ककए
जाने हेतु आदेि कर ददए जो मेरा कताव्य
था।"

22. This assertion by the petitioner in
his reply to the show cause notice dated
04.12.2023,
issued
to
him
by
the
respondents, is quoted in paragraph No.22
of the writ petition, after setting forth its
context. In paragraph No.8 of the counter
affidavit, the assertion that the petitioner
was directed by the Engineer-in-Chief to
forthwith ensure enforcement of his order,
when it came to the latter's notice that
Bhagirathi Singh had refused to give
Chhatrapati Singh additional charge of
Executive Engineer, as ordered by the
Engineer-in-Chief,
has
not
been
specifically denied by the respondents. This
case of the petitioner set forth in his reply
to the show cause notice has not been
considered by the State Government while
passing the impugned order. If, therefore,
the petitioner really acted under directions
of the Engineer-in-Chief to promptly
enforce the latter's orders, there is not even
an indiscretion about the petitioner, in any
view of the matter, passing the order dated
16.03.2023, directing Chhatrapati Singh to
take over charge of the Executive Engineer,
Irrigation
Construction
Division-II,
Lalitpur. The assertion that the petitioner
was instructed/ directed by the Engineer-inChief to forthwith ensure enforcement of
his order dated 15.03.2023, being neither
denied
by
the
respondents
in
their
pleadings or inquired into, considered and
rejected while passing the impugned order,
must be accepted as the correct state of
things.

23. The first part of the charge or
imputation
against
the
petitioner,
condemning his conduct in ordering
Chhatrapati Singh directly to be given
charge of Executive Engineer, Irrigation
Construction Division-II, Lalitpur, can
hardly be called an act of misconduct. The
inference of the State Government that it
was an act of misconduct is clearly
perverse,
based
on
conjecture
and
ignorance
of
what
may
legitimately
constitute an act of misconduct. So far as
the angle of there being any kind of
connivance or conspiracy between the
petitioner
and
Chhatrapati
Singh
is
concerned, which led the petitioner to
ensure handing over of charge of the
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction
Division-II, Lalitpur, there is not the
slightest of material on record, from which
that inference could be drawn. Therefore,
that inference to the extent that figures in
the order impugned is one based on no
material.

24. This takes us to the other limb of
the charge or the allegation. This is about
the petitioner signing a narrative in a casual
manner without examining facts, where
paragraph No.11 of Writ-A No.13224 of
2023 filed by Chhatrapati Singh against his
suspension from service was not answered
at all. There is no case, at any stage, urged
by the respondents that it was the
petitioner, who authored or drew up the
narrative. It was obviously drawn up by the
office of the Executive Engineer or at some
other level, but by the office dealing with
legal matters. It was signed by the
Executive Engineer, who was the junior-
1 All. Gopal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
451
most
officer,
followed
by
the
Superintending
Engineer,
the
Chief
Engineer
Level-II
and
then
by
the
petitioner, before being finally signed by
the Head of the Department, to wit, the
Engineer-in-Chief. In this state of things,
when none of the officer's conduct, besides
that
of
the
petitioner,
was
found
blameworthy in missing out answering
paragraph No.11 of Writ-A No.13224 of
2023 in the narrative jointly signed by
them, the omission has to be viewed as an
inadvertent mistake or lapse on the part of
all the officers. Of whatever kind of lapse
this omission is, it can certainly not be
classed as any kind of a misconduct.

25. The other officers, who signed the
narrative, have rightly not been proceeded
with against for this lapse. As already
remarked, in the thick of official business,
if every slip or mistake by an officer were
dubbed as misconduct, every member of
the service would face the peril of
disciplinary proceedings on the fall of pen
at any official paper. A service misconduct
certainly does not mean trivial lapses,
mistakes, inadvertent omissions, incorrect
decisions and the like done bona fide
everyday by a government servant or
official in the course of his duties. Now the
impugned order says that in signing the
narrative casually and without verifying
facts,
the
petitioner
has
exhibited
remissness and negligence. In the nature of
things, that kind of a charge can hardly be
laid against the petitioner.

26. There is no case and much less
material to show that the petitioner
deliberately managed to ensure that the
narrative remains deficient. In the absence
of that allegation supported by some
material to show that it was the petitioner,
who managed or caused paragraph No.11
of Chhatrapati Singh's writ petition to
remain unanswered in the narrative, the
impugned order, holding the petitioner
guilty for the said lapse as an act of
misconduct, is again perverse and one
founded on no material. Though there is no
tangible material as well to draw a
conclusion of mala fides against the
respondents, based on the fact that the
impugned order was passed for the purpose
of depriving the petitioner of his chance of
promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief,
the utter oddities, that we have noticed,
have their lurking presence, which may
create a suspicion of that kind. We say this
because in the ordinary circumstances, acts
that have been charged against the
petitioner as misconduct, would have
passed off without attention; just as they
did in the case of four other officers,
including
the
Engineer-in-Chief,
who
signed the narrative, like the petitioner.
Nevertheless, since we do not necessarily
have to go into that question to pronounce
upon the validity of the impugned order,
we refrain from expressing any opinion on
the issue of mala fides urged by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner. All the more so,
because mala fides have not been urged
against a definitive person with sufficient
pleadings or the man impleaded eo nomine.

27. In view of what we have held
above, the impugned order cannot be
sustained and must perish.

28. In the result, this petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned order dated
24.05.2024
passed
by
the
State
Government is hereby quashed.

29. There shall be no order as to costs.

30. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Principal Secretary,
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Department
of
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources, Government of U.P., Lucknow
by the Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 452
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 9913 of 2023
With
Writ-A No. 4808 of 2024

Ashutosh Pandey & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:

Counsel for the Respondents:
(A) Service Law - Promotion and Seniority
Dispute
- Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant Rules, 2013, Tehsildar Service
Rules, 1966 - Rule 6 & 4 - The Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Revenue (Tehsildar)
Service Rules, 1966 - Rule 6 , The U.P
Government
Servant
Relaxation
in
Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules,
2006 (amended in 2013) - Rule 2 & 4, The
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion
Rules, 1998 - Arbitrary Appointment -
Breach of Seniority Principle - Promotion -
Seniority List - Relaxation in Eligibility -
Seniority must be maintained as per the
select list issued by the Public Service
Commission - Grant of relaxation in
qualifying service is discretionary and
cannot be claimed as a matter of right -
Promotions should be considered based on
final,
not
tentative
seniority
lists
-
Employee only has the right to be
considered for promotion but there is no
right to be promoted, if conditions are
satisfied. (Para -23,24,27,35,36,39 )
Petitioners were selected as Naib-Tehsildars in
2016 batch - were issued appointment letters at
different times, leading to delays in joining -
Board of Revenue prepared a seniority list in
2020 - did not initially include petitioners due to
their delayed joining - subsequent relaxation in
qualifying service was granted only to those
who had joined before 31/12/2019, excluding
the petitioners - petitioners challenged the
promotion of junior candidates before their own
consideration.(Para - 2 to 27)

HELD: - State must ensure that relaxation in
eligibility does not violate the seniority principle;
promotions should be made based on finalized
seniority lists. State Government was directed to
consider
and
decide
the
proposal
dated
17/10/2024 expeditiously, with further direction
to consider and make the promotions to the
post of Tehsildar also expeditiously. Interim
order restraining promotions vacated. (Para -
29,38,41)
Writ A No.9913 of 2023 disposed of.
writ A No.4808 of 2024 dismissed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:
1. St. of U.P. Vs Vikash Kumar Singh, (2022) 1
SCC 347
2. U.O.I. Vs Manpreet Singh, (2022) 6 SCC 105

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Dr. Lalta Prasad Mishra, and
Sri
Jaideep
Narain
Mathur,
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Avinash Singh
Vishen on behalf of the petitioners, Sri
Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional
Advocate General for the State of U.P..

2. It has been submitted on behalf of
petitioners
that
in
pursuance
of
advertisement dated 11/01/2016 issued by
the U.P Public Services Commission for
appointment to various posts including the
post of Naib-Tehsildar the petitioners had