# Hari Shankar Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 706
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 14109 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-shankar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53752
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Whether an order of compulsory retirement with
50% deduction of gratuity could be sustained
when the enquiry report recorded no specific
finding of misconduct against the petitioner, and
the alleged irregularities in handling answer
booklets were attributable primarily to other
employees, coupled with institutional lapses,
and no provision existed authorising deduction
of gratuity in the absence of financial loss to the
University.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Compulsory Retirement - No Specific Finding of
Misconduct - Collective Liability - Institutional
Failure - Deduction of Gratuity Without Financial
Loss - Illegal.
Held :
Petitioner, working on the post of Assistant
Registrar,
was
subjected
to
disciplinary
proceedings for alleged negligence relating to
answer booklets that were found to have been
written after evaluation. Petitioner denied the
charges. Despite the absence of any specific
finding of negligence or misconduct, the
disciplinary
authority
imposed
compulsory
retirement with 50% deduction of gratuity,
which was upheld in appeal. Held: A person
having overall supervision of the concerned
department
cannot
be
punished
with
compulsory retirement unless a finding is
recorded to the effect that the petitioner has
committed misconduct or has been negligent in
his duties. Once such a finding has not been
recorded in the impugned order, and only on
the basis of general fixation of liability on all the
employees
involved
in
the
department
concerned, the impugned order of compulsory
retirement and 50% deduction of gratuity is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. Deduction of
50% gratuity, when no financial loss was
suffered by the University, does not stand legal
sanctity, as no provision was shown which
empowered the respondent-University to deduct
gratuity without financial loss. Writ petition
allowed; orders of compulsory retirement and
deduction of gratuity dated 06.06.2019 and
10.11.2020 quashed; consequential benefits
directed. (Paras 20-24) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
None

List of Acts
Constitution of India;

List of Keywords
Disciplinary
Proceedings;
Compulsory
Retirement; Misconduct Not Proved; Collective
Liability;
Institutional
Failure;
Forensic
Examination; Answer Booklet Manipulation;
Supervisory Role; Gratuity Deduction; Natural
Justice; No Financial Loss; Arbitrary Punishment.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 06.06.2019 passed by Registrar,
Bundelkhand
University,
Jhansi,
imposing
compulsory retirement with 50% deduction of
8 All. Hari Shankar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
707
gratuity; Appellate order and Executive Council
resolution dated 10.11.2020 affirming the
punishment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Sri Gulrez Khan; Sri
Javed Husain Khan, Senior Advocate
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Sri Rohit
Pandey

## Text

706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
irregularity or violation of the prescribed
procedure, the petitioner's appointment
stands on firm legal footing and is not
liable to be annulled retrospectively.

55. In light of the above discussion,
the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order is quashed. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner in service
with all consequential benefits for which he
is entitled.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 706
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 14109 of 2021

Hari Shankar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gulrez Khan, Javed Husain Khan, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rohit Pandey

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether an order of compulsory retirement with
50% deduction of gratuity could be sustained
when the enquiry report recorded no specific
finding of misconduct against the petitioner, and
the alleged irregularities in handling answer
booklets were attributable primarily to other
employees, coupled with institutional lapses,
and no provision existed authorising deduction
of gratuity in the absence of financial loss to the
University.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Compulsory Retirement - No Specific Finding of
Misconduct - Collective Liability - Institutional
Failure - Deduction of Gratuity Without Financial
Loss - Illegal.
Held :
Petitioner, working on the post of Assistant
Registrar,
was
subjected
to
disciplinary
proceedings for alleged negligence relating to
answer booklets that were found to have been
written after evaluation. Petitioner denied the
charges. Despite the absence of any specific
finding of negligence or misconduct, the
disciplinary
authority
imposed
compulsory
retirement with 50% deduction of gratuity,
which was upheld in appeal. Held: A person
having overall supervision of the concerned
department
cannot
be
punished
with
compulsory retirement unless a finding is
recorded to the effect that the petitioner has
committed misconduct or has been negligent in
his duties. Once such a finding has not been
recorded in the impugned order, and only on
the basis of general fixation of liability on all the
employees
involved
in
the
department
concerned, the impugned order of compulsory
retirement and 50% deduction of gratuity is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. Deduction of
50% gratuity, when no financial loss was
suffered by the University, does not stand legal
sanctity, as no provision was shown which
empowered the respondent-University to deduct
gratuity without financial loss. Writ petition
allowed; orders of compulsory retirement and
deduction of gratuity dated 06.06.2019 and
10.11.2020 quashed; consequential benefits
directed. (Paras 20-24) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
None

List of Acts
Constitution of India;

List of Keywords
Disciplinary
Proceedings;
Compulsory
Retirement; Misconduct Not Proved; Collective
Liability;
Institutional
Failure;
Forensic
Examination; Answer Booklet Manipulation;
Supervisory Role; Gratuity Deduction; Natural
Justice; No Financial Loss; Arbitrary Punishment.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 06.06.2019 passed by Registrar,
Bundelkhand
University,
Jhansi,
imposing
compulsory retirement with 50% deduction of
8 All. Hari Shankar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
707
gratuity; Appellate order and Executive Council
resolution dated 10.11.2020 affirming the
punishment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Sri Gulrez Khan; Sri
Javed Husain Khan, Senior Advocate
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Sri Rohit
Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri
Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent-University.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred challenging the order dated
6.6.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 and
order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the
Disciplinary
Committee
as
well
as
resolution
dated
10.11.2020.
Further,
prayer has been made in writ petition for
directing respondents to treat the petitioner
in service till the date of retirement i.e.
31.10.2019 and pay arrears of salary for the
period 6.6.2019 to 31.10.2019 and further
all consequential benefits.

3.
The
petitioner
was
initially
appointed as routine clerk/typist by order
dated 1.4.1982. Petitioner was granted
promotion from time to time and finally
petitioner was promoted to the post of
Office Superintendent by order dated
22.12.2015 and thereafter petitioner was
promoted on Adhoc basis on the post of
Assistant
Registrar
by
order
dated
6.7.2018. Petitioner received chargesheet
dated 26.4.2019 alleging negligence in duty
in respect of three charges mentioned in the
above-mentioned
chargesheet.
The
petitioner submitted detailed reply to the
chargesheet denying allegations against the
petitioner by means of reply dated
2.5.2019.
After
enquiry
proceedings,
enquiry report was submitted on 17.5.2019
holding
the
petitioner
guilty
of
negligence/indifferent on the basis of fact
that petitioner was responsible for the
alleged act. The petitioner thereafter was
issued a show cause notice dated 30.5.2019
against the enquiry report dated 17.5.2019.
Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation
dated 1.6.2019 in respect of show cause
notice dated 30.5.2019. Thereafter, by
means of the impugned order dated
6.6.2019,
petitioner
was
inflicted
punishment of compulsory retirement. The
petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal
against the order dated 6.6.2019 before the
Disciplinary
Committee
under
the
University
Statutes.
The
Disciplinary
Committee
dismissed
the
appeal
of
petitioner by order dated 10.11.2020 and
said dismissal of appeal was approved by
Executive Council in its meeting dated
10.11.2020.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that order dated 6.6.2019 directs
compulsory retirement of petitioner with
deduction of 50% gratuity, in pursuance to
disciplinary proceedings. The chargesheet
dated 26.4.2019 alleged three charges
against the petitioner. The first charge
pertains to the fact that after evaluation of
answer sheets it was found that the answer
sheet has been written subsequently and as
such the petitioner was alleged to be
negligent and indifferent to his work. The
second
charge
against
the
petitioner
pertains that keys of evaluation centre
being handed over to Daily Assistant -
Satya Prakash without permission of higher
authorities. The third charge against the
petitioner pertains to failure of petitioner to
supervise progress when the copy of
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
answer sheet was given to the students.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that charges against the petitioner
were denied by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner who was working on
the post of Office Superintendent in the
respondent-University
by
order
dated
6.6.2019 has been inflicted with the
punishment of compulsory retirement along
with deduction of 50% of gratuity. The
facts and circumstances which led to
initiation
of
disciplinary
proceedings
against petitioner are to the effect that for
the Academic Session 2017-18, in respect
of annual examination, 13 students applied
under the Right to Information Act for copy
of the answer booklet. The said students
further alleged that there is a mistake in the
evaluation of answer booklet or some of
answers have not been awarded marks. The
aforesaid grievance was made to Grievance
Committee. The member of Grievance
Committee, Prof. Archana Verma on
founding doubt on the handwriting in the
answer booklet reported the same to the
Registrar of University. The Registrar of
University
thereafter
got
conducted
forensic examination of 13 answer booklets
and the aforesaid forensic examination
confirmed that answer booklets in which
the answer have not been awarded marks
were in fact written later on.

6. In view of aforesaid facts, the
Registrar of the University constituted a
preliminary
examination
committee
consisting of Prof. V.K. Sehgal, Prof.
S.K. Kabia and Dr. M.M. Rajput. The
aforesaid examination committee in its
report
dated
30.1.2019
found
that
petitioner, one Rajendra Ram (Retired
Senior
Assistant)
and
Shri
Satya
Prakash, Daily Assistant were prima
facie found to be involved in the abovementioned incident. The aforesaid report
was placed before the examination
committee
in
its
meeting
dated
30.1.2019 and thereafter examination
committee cancelled the examination of
13 students and further recommended for
disciplinary proceedings being initiated
against the employees found involved in
the alleged incident.

7.
In
furtherance
of
above
mentioned examination committee report
and recommendation of examination
committee, the Registrar of University
constituted a Final Enquiry Committee
of Prof. S.K. Katiyar (Chairman), Prof
M.M. Singh (Member) and Dr D.P.
Gupta (Member). The final enquiry
committee thereafter gave opportunity to
13 students to represent their case before
the aforesaid committee. As per the
meeting dated 25.4.2019, seven students
did not appear before the aforesaid
committee. The said committee further
granted time to the petitioner, Sri Satya
Prakash, Daily Assistant who were
issued chargesheet dated 26.4.2019. Sri
Rajendra Ram and other workers who
were
attached
with
the
evaluation
section of the University were also given
opportunity to represent their case
before the committee.

8. A perusal of the chargesheet
dated 26.4.2019 issued to the petitioner
would show that three charges were
levelled against the petitioner in the
disciplinary proceedings. The aforesaid
three charges are as under :-

a) The first charge against the
petitioner pertains to writing of answer
booklets after evaluation, which is
indicative of negligence and indifference
towards his work by the petitioner.
8 All. Hari Shankar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
709

b) The second charge against the
petitioner
pertains
that
the
keys
of
evaluation centre were handed over to
Daily Assistant - Sri Satya Prakash without
the permission of higher authorities.

c) The third charge against
petitioner pertains to failure of petitioner to
supervise the process when the copy of
answer booklet was given to students.

9. The petitioner thereafter submitted
his reply dated 2.5.2019 in response to
chargesheet dated 26.4.2019. In the reply
dated 2.5.2019, petitioner denied the
charges levelled in the chargesheet against
the petitioner. The petitioner further replied
that answer booklet storage office work
was being executed by Sri Satya PrakashDaily Assistant and Sri Rajendra Ram and
for the assistance of the aforesaid two
employees, five daily wage workers were
appointed under the order of the Registrar
of University. The aforesaid workers were
working under the guidance of Sri Satya
Prakash-Daily Assistant and Sri Rajendra
Ram and used to execute the work of
taking out the answer booklets on their
instructions. Out of five daily wage
workers, three workers were assigned duty
of taking out the answer booklet on the
instructions of Sri Satya Prakash-Daily
Assistant and Sri Rajendra Ram and the
other two workers were assigned duty of
making copy of the answer booklets. The
petitioner further replied that the petitioner
was stationed at evaluation building of the
University and used to visit answer booklet
storage facility for taking information about
the work in progress and the petitioner
thereafter used to report the same to the
higher authorities. The petitioner further in
his reply stated that he was stationed at
administrative
building
and
used
to
discharge
his
duty
pertaining
to
examination from the aforesaid office.

10. The petitioner in its reply further
stated that he was suffering from heart
disease and was also admitted in the
hospital at Gurugram, New Delhi and also
undergone
open
heart
surgery
from
1.10.2018 to 21.11.2018 and petitioner
remained on medical leave. The petitioner
in its reply dated 2.5.2019 also submitted
reply to each of three charges against
petitioner, which are as under :-

(a) In respect of charge no. 1,
petitioner replied that in answer booklet
storage centre for the past 8 to 10 years, Sri
Rajendra Ram was working. In respect of
examination of year 2018, large number of
applications were received under the Right
to Information Act and as such Sri Satya
Prakash-Daily Assistant was directed orally
by earlier Examination Controller Sri P.N.
Prasad to work at the answer booklet
storage centre, for the Right to Information
applications and maintenance of answer
booklets pertaining to scrutiny and for
preparing copy of aforesaid booklet being
send to concerned department. For the
assistance of the aforesaid two employees,
five daily wage workers were also assigned
and said daily wage workers, work under
the supervision of Sri Rajendra Ram and Sri
Satya Prakash. The said Sri Rajendra Ram
and Sri Satya Prakash were responsible that
the answer booklets are taken out and copy
prepared by the workers in their presence
and sent to concerned department. It was
also stated by petitioner that in September
2018, petitioner suffered serious ailment of
heart disease which was informed to senior
officials and as such, the petitioner claimed
that there was no negligence or indifference
attitude to work, by the petitioner.
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) In respect of charge no. 2,
petitioner in its reply stated that Sri
Rajendra Ram for last 8 to 10 years was
working at answer booklet storage centre
and after his retirement storage centre keys
and other documents were handed over to
Sri Satya Prakash on the oral direction of
Deputy
Registrar
(Examination).
The
petitioner in its reply stated that in
pursuance
to
above-mentioned
oral
direction, keys of answer booklet storage
centre was handed over to Sri Satya
Prakash by petitioner. Thereafter, Deputy
Registrar (Examination) called for reemployment of Sri Rajendra Ram after his
retirement.
Sri
Rajendra
Ram
was
thereafter
appointed
by
Registrar
of
respondent-University on 10.5.2018 on
daily wages in the answer booklet storage
centre for six months. The aforesaid two
employees used to open answer booklet
storage centre at 10:00 a.m. and close the
same at 5:00 p.m. The keys of the centre at
the time when Sri Satya Prakash was on
leave were kept with Sri Rajendra Ram.

(c) In respect of charge no. 3,
petitioner in its reply stated that copy of
original answer booklet was prepared by
daily wage worker on instructions of Sri
Rajendra Ram and Sri Satya Prakash and
thereafter entry was made in the register;
subsequently the aforesaid was sent to the
Right to Information Department and the
aforesaid department used to hand over
copy of answer booklet to the student
concerned. The students were not provided
with the copy of answer booklet directly
from the answer booklet storage facility.
The transfer of answer booklet to the Right
to Information Department was made under
the supervision of petitioner. Whenever
challenged, answer booklets were required
by the challenge department then Sri Satya
Prakash used to send the same under the
signature of petitioner. The petitioner also
used to make certain inspection of
examination building. From 1.10.2018 to
21.11.2018 petitioner was on medical leave
and no other person was made in-charge of
evaluation centre during the period when
petitioner was on medical leave. The
petitioner denied any negligence in his
work.

11. The petitioner thereafter received
letter dated 9.5.2019 enclosing copy of
complaint dated 3.3.2019 submitted by
above-mentioned Sri Satya Prakash. The
above mentioned complaint dated 3.3.2019
alleged that the petitioner had called for
answer booklet of one student Madhur
Kumar Sahu (through one pawan who was
working on daily wage) and the same was
returned after three days. Before return of
the answer booklet, the student obtain 14
marks and was failed in the aforesaid
subject, however, on return of the answer
booklet, he had obtained 15 marks and was
passed. The complainant made request that
the forensic examination be made of the
said booklet. It was further alleged in the
said complaint that five persons who are
working as daily wager at the evaluation
centre were brought by petitioner and the
aforesaid person also used to do work at the
home of petitioner. It was also alleged that
keys of the evaluation centre were kept
with the petitioner for the period from
4.10.2018 to 21.11.2018 and one key was
with Sri Satya Prakash.

12. The petitioner thereafter submitted
its reply on 15.5.2019 in respect of
complaint dated 3.3.2019. The petitioner
denied the allegations made in complaint.
In respect of the student Madhur Kumar
Sahu it is stated in reply that the answer
booklets were never called for by petitioner
nor same was returned. The daily wagers
8 All. Hari Shankar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
711
were appointed by administrative order of
University. It was also denied that the
aforesaid daily wagers were related to
petitioner or they were working at the
household of petitioner. It was also alleged
in reply that in respect of work of scrutiny
and public information or answer booklets,
the daily wagers proposal was presented by
Sri Satya Prakash. Sri Satya Prakash under
his supervision used to take work from the
daily wagers. The keys were kept by Sri
Satya Prakash.

13. Thereafter, enquiry report dated
17.5.2019 was submitted by the enquiry
committee.
The
aforesaid
enquiry
committee entered into enquiry in respect
of three points, one being whether the
petitioner was negligent and indifferent
towards the work, has handed over the keys
of evaluation centre to Sri Satya Prakash
without permission of higher officials; and
was negligent in the photo copy of the
answer
booklets.
The
second
issue
examined
by
the
enquiry
committee
pertains to negligence on the part of choice
of Sri Satya Prakash and third point
pertaining to examination of the working of
retired employee Sri Rajendra Ram and
daily wagers.

14. The issue no. 1 in the enquiry
report pertaining to the petitioner whether
the petitioner was negligent and indifferent
towards the work, has handed over the keys
of evaluation centre to Sri Satya Prakash
without permission of higher official; and
was negligent in photo copy of the answer
booklets. The enquiry report came to the
conclusion that petitioner was posted in the
admin block and used to do sudden
inspection of the evaluation centre as a
result
of
the
same
no
permanent
supervision of evaluation centre could be
made and the centre were in the custody of
Sri Satya Prakash and all the work was
being done under the supervision of Sri
Satya Prakash and Sri Rajendra Ram. The
aforesaid enquiry report in respect of issue
no. 1 did not record any finding of
negligence or misconduct against the
petitioner. Insofar as issue nos. 2 and 3 are
concerned, the same did not pertain to the
petitioner.

15. The said enquiry report further
concludes that all the employees were
collectively responsible for the writing of
the answers subsequently. The aforesaid
report further recorded a finding that the
evaluation work was specifically being
done by Sri Satya Prakash and Sri Rajendra
Ram. The aforesaid report further recorded
that the keys of centre were kept with Sri
Satya Prakash. The enquiry report further
concludes that the aforesaid latches is a
institutional failure.

16. The aforesaid enquiry report dated
17.5.2019
was
accepted
by
Vice
Chancellor. The petitioner was issued a
notice dated 28.5.2019 annexing copy of
enquiry report and the same was replied by
petitioner's
reply
dated
1.6.2019.
Thereafter, by impugned order dated
6.6.2019, the petitioner has been directed
for compulsory retirement with deduction
of 50% gratuity. The petitioner preferred an
appeal and the same was rejected by
respondent
authority
by
order
dated
10.11.2020.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that enquiry report does not
show the petitioner to be guilty of any
misconduct connected with the allegations
in the chargesheet. It is further submitted
that petitioner has been punished on the
basis of presumption as being in-charge of
the evaluation centre. The petitioner was
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assigned duty to assist the coordinator and
in this respect, petitioner has retired by the
office order dated 6.3.2018. It is submitted
that the finding recorded by enquiry report,
the alleged misdeeds has been conducted
and the joint responsibility is vested with
all
the
employees.
The
primary
responsibility as per the enquiry report was
vested with Sri Satya Prakash. It is further
submitted that deduction of 50% of the
gratuity in the impugned order is totally
illegal as no financial loss was suffered by
the respondent-University. Learned counsel
for petitioner further submits that no
specific finding has been recorded against
the
petitioner
with
regard
to
any
misconduct in the enquiry report although
all the employees have been found to be
jointly responsible. No finding has been
recorded as to whether the petitioner was
having charge of the work of answer
booklet storage centre.

18.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-University has opposed the
prayer in the writ petition and submits that
the
answer
booklets
were
written
subsequently after evaluation on the pretext
of
filing
of
Right
to
Information
applications. Learned counsel for the
respondent-University further submits that
joint liability on all the employees have
been fixed by the University, however, he
could not dispute the fact that no specific
liability with regard to misconduct has been
recorded in the enquiry report against the
petitioner.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-University
submits
that
petitioner was in the supervisory capacity
and the main delinquent employee is Sri
Satya Prakash.

19. On a query being made to learned
counsel for the respondent-University with
regard to any specific finding, learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-University
submits that complaint dated 3.3.2019 of
Sri Satya Prakash, copy of student Madhur
Kumar Sahu was taken out on the
instructions of the petitioner which was
subsequently found to have been written
after evaluation and the petitioner was also
involved in the alleged incident.

20. It is further to be seen that in the
enquiry report dated 17.5.2019 in respect of
charge no. 1, following finding has been
recorded :-

"श्री हरीशंकर यादव प्रशासकनक भवन में बैठकर व
मूलयांकन केन्र का औचक कनरीक्षण कर अपने दाकयत्वों का कनवजहन
करते थे कजससे मूलयांकन कायज की स्थायी कनगरानी नहीं हो पाती थी
तथा चाकबयााँ भी श्री सत्यप्रकाश की अकभरक्षा में रहती थीं। समस्त
कायज सत्यप्रकाश व राजेन्रराम की देखरेख में होता था।"

21. A perusal of aforesaid finding in
the enquiry report would go to show that no
specific finding with regard to any
misconduct has been recorded against the
petitioner and the finding was only
indicative of the lapses on the part of
University
administration.
A
specific
finding has also been recorded in the
enquiry report that daily wagers used to
take out the answer booklets on the
instruction of Sri Satya Prakash- Daily
Assistant. The enquiry also records its
finding that the complaint of Sri Satya
Prakash dated 3.3.2019 have been found to
be incorrect. The relevant portion of the
enquiry report is quoted hereinbelow :-

"6.
सकमकत
की
िष्टम
बैठक
कदनांक
15/05/2019 को बुिायी गयी कजसमें दोनों आरोपी श्री
हरीशंकर यादव एवं सत्यप्रकाश उपकस्थत होकर जांच सकमकत द्वारा
कनकमजत प्रश्नों के किकखत उत्तर कदए तथा कुछ मौकखक जवाब कदए। श्री
राजेन्रराम सेवाकनवृत्त कमजचारी ने उपकस्थत होकर किकखत में अपना
पक्ष प्रस्तुत ककया। परीक्षाथी अशोक यादव की उत्तर पुकस्तका का
फॉरेकन्सक ररपोटज का अविोकन ककया तथा सत्यप्रकाश की
8 All. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
713
कशकायत कदनांक 03/03/2019 के आिार पर उत्तर पुकस्तका
मंगाकर अविोकन ककया गया तो कशकायत असत्य पायी गयी।"

22. The enquiry report records finding
that eight answer booklets were taken out
from the storage centre at the time when
the petitioner was in-charge of the
aforesaid department and five answer
booklets were taken out when the petitioner
was on medical leave. The case of
petitioner is that the petitioner was having
his duty at the evaluation department and
not at the storage centre may be indicative
of fact that the petitioner was not having
proper control over the storage centre and
the aforesaid finding could only be
recorded in the event findings recorded by
the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was
responsible for supervision of the storage
centre. As per the office order dated
6.3.2018, the petitioner was assigned duty
to assist the Coordinator. The office order
dated 6.3.2018 has not been denied in the
counter affidavit. The only stand taken in
the counter affidavit was to the effect that
the petitioner was in-charge of the
evaluation centre and no office order has
been filed along with the counter affidavit
with regard to the aforesaid duties of the
petitioner. Even otherwise, if there was a
laxity on the part of the petitioner then
specific finding ought to have been
recorded by referring to the duty chart of
the petitioner, more particularly, when
finding as recorded in the enquiry report
that the answer booklets were taken out on
the instruction of Sri Satya Prakash-Daily
Assistant.

23. Even otherwise deduction of 50%
gratuity, more particularly, when no
financial loss has been suffered by the
University also does not stand legal
sanctity as no provision is shown by
learned counsel for the University which
empowers respondents to deduct gratuity
without financial loss. Insofar as the stand
of the respondent-University that complaint
dated 3.3.2019 with regard to student
Madhur Kant Sahu is concerned, specific
finding has been recorded to the effect that
the complaint dated 3.3.2019 was found to
be incorrect. Even otherwise a person
having overall supervision of a concerned
department cannot be punished with
compulsory
retirement
unless
finding
recorded to the effect that petitioner has
committed any misconduct or has been
negligent in his duties. Once such finding
has not been recorded in the impugned
order and only on the basis of general
fixation of liability on all the employees
involved in department concerned, the
impugned order of compulsory retirement
and 50% deduction of gratuity is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and as such is
liable to be set aside.

24. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated
6.6.2019
passed
by
Registrar,
Bundelkhand
University,
Jhansi
-
respondent
no.
3
and
order
dated
10.11.2020 passed by the Disciplinary
Committee as well as resolution dated
10.11.2020 is set aside. The writ petition is
allowed with consequential relief.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 713
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 20140 of 2023

Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents