# Indra Mohan Pandey v. Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 675
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 9820 of 2014
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indra-mohan-pandey-v-union-of-india-ors-53747
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Whether dismissal order can be passed without
holding proper inquiry and without mentioning
conduct of petitioner, in the matter where the
petitioner was convicted in criminal case arising
out of offence of culpable homicide with
allegation of direct and specific role?

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Dismissal from service -
Conviction in criminal case - Sentence of
six years rigorous imprisonment for an
offence
of
culpable
homicide
not
amounting to murder was passed, which
was subsequently suspended in appeal
against it - No inquiry was conducted
before passing order of dismissal
-
Permissibility - Conduct of petitioner was
not mentioned in the dismissal order -
Effect :
Held : Regulation 12(E) provides an exception
to Rule 12 that no order imposing any penalty
specified in Clause 4 to 8 of Rule 11 shall be
made except after an inquiry held as far as may
be in the manner provided in the Rule 12 and
Rule 12-A except where any penalty imposed on
service on a ground of conduct which has led to
his conviction in a criminal case, therefore, in
present case where impugned order was passed
without conducting proper inquiry is not an
illegal order - Only on a ground that conduct of
petitioner led to his conviction was not
specifically mentioned in impugned order would
not render the order impugned absolutely illegal
since concerned respondents have taken note of
order of conviction and punishment and
considered the gravity of misconduct and an
order of dismissal from service was passed.
[Paras 12 and 15] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Ram Kishan v. State of U.P. and others,
2020:AHC:7131; Vishwanath Vishwakarma v.
State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC-LKO:59434;
Gulab Dutt Dubey v. State of U.P. and others,
2024:AHC-LKO:22623;
Deputy
Director
of
Collegiate Education (Admin.) Madras v. S.
Nagoor Meera, AIR 1995 SC 1364; Shankar Das
v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 358 - referred
to.

List of Acts
The Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 -
Clause 12(A)(1) and 12(E).

List of Keywords
Dismissal; Conviction; Sentence of six years
rigorous imprisonment; Suspension of sentence;
Departmental Appeal; Punishment; Culpable
homicide not amounting to murder; Common
intention; Direct role; Exception; Proper inquiry;
Conduct of petitioner; Gravity of misconduct.

Case Arising From
Order dated 03.09.2013 passed in departmental
appeal confirming the order dated 30.01.20204
dismissing the petitioner from service.

## Text

8 All. Indra Mohan Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.
675
at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear
their own costs.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 675
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 9820 of 2014

Indra Mohan Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Satyam Singh,
Shiv Nath Singh, Swapnesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.B. Gupta

Issue for Consideration
Whether dismissal order can be passed without
holding proper inquiry and without mentioning
conduct of petitioner, in the matter where the
petitioner was convicted in criminal case arising
out of offence of culpable homicide with
allegation of direct and specific role?

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Dismissal from service -
Conviction in criminal case - Sentence of
six years rigorous imprisonment for an
offence
of
culpable
homicide
not
amounting to murder was passed, which
was subsequently suspended in appeal
against it - No inquiry was conducted
before passing order of dismissal
-
Permissibility - Conduct of petitioner was
not mentioned in the dismissal order -
Effect :
Held : Regulation 12(E) provides an exception
to Rule 12 that no order imposing any penalty
specified in Clause 4 to 8 of Rule 11 shall be
made except after an inquiry held as far as may
be in the manner provided in the Rule 12 and
Rule 12-A except where any penalty imposed on
service on a ground of conduct which has led to
his conviction in a criminal case, therefore, in
present case where impugned order was passed
without conducting proper inquiry is not an
illegal order - Only on a ground that conduct of
petitioner led to his conviction was not
specifically mentioned in impugned order would
not render the order impugned absolutely illegal
since concerned respondents have taken note of
order of conviction and punishment and
considered the gravity of misconduct and an
order of dismissal from service was passed.
[Paras 12 and 15] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Ram Kishan v. State of U.P. and others,
2020:AHC:7131; Vishwanath Vishwakarma v.
State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC-LKO:59434;
Gulab Dutt Dubey v. State of U.P. and others,
2024:AHC-LKO:22623;
Deputy
Director
of
Collegiate Education (Admin.) Madras v. S.
Nagoor Meera, AIR 1995 SC 1364; Shankar Das
v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 358 - referred
to.

List of Acts
The Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 -
Clause 12(A)(1) and 12(E).

List of Keywords
Dismissal; Conviction; Sentence of six years
rigorous imprisonment; Suspension of sentence;
Departmental Appeal; Punishment; Culpable
homicide not amounting to murder; Common
intention; Direct role; Exception; Proper inquiry;
Conduct of petitioner; Gravity of misconduct.

Case Arising From
Order dated 03.09.2013 passed in departmental
appeal confirming the order dated 30.01.20204
dismissing the petitioner from service.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. In the present case, petitioner, a
Pharmacist at Cantonment Hospital, Agra
has faced a Sessions Trial for an offence
under Sections 302, 323, 452 IPC for an
occurrence took place on 14.03.1988
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein one person died and two persons
got injured. The trial was concluded and
trial Court by a judgment and order dated
28.04.2000 convicted the petitioner and
other three accused under Sections 304/34,
323/34 and 452 IPC and petitioner was
awarded sentence of six years rigorous
imprisonment.

2. An appeal against the aforesaid
judgment and order was filed which is still
pending though petitioner was granted
suspension of sentence vide an order dated
02.05.2000.

3.
On basis
of
above
referred
conviction, the petitioner was dismissed
from
service
vide
an
order
dated
30.01.2004 passed by the Cantonment
Executive
Officer,
Agra
(Competent
Authority). For reference, said order is
quoted below :-

"WHEREAS, Shri Indra Mohan
Panday, Pharmacist, has been convicted by the
Hon'ble Court of IV, Addl. Session Judge,
Agra in judgment and order dt. 28.4.2000 in
S.T. No. 166 of 1000;

AND WHEREAS, the conviction
by the court has not been set-aside by any
other Court/authority;

AND WHEREAS, the judgement
dt. 28.4.2000 of the Hon'ble Court of IV Addl.
Session Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 166 of 1990
(State Vs Indra Mohan & others) has been
perused by the undersigned and it is found that
the gravity of misconduct committed by Shri
Indra Mohan Panday, Pharmacist is prejudicial
to the administration of the Cantonment Board
and that he is not fit to remain in service;

AND
WHEREAS,
the
representation dt. Nil received in the office
on 17.12.2003 from Shri Indra Mohan
Panday has been considered by the
undersigned;

THEREFORE, in exercise of
powers conferred upon the disciplinary
authority under Rule 11 (2) (VIII) of CFSR
1937 Shri Indra Mohan Panday, Pharmacist
is
dismissed
from
the
service
with
immediate effect."

4.
Immediately,
thereafter,
the
petitioner has filed Departmental Appeal
which remained pending for many years
and finally vide order dated 03.09.2013, it
was
dismissed
after
taking
note
of
judgment and order of conviction and
punishment and relying upon a judgment of
Supreme Court.

5. Initially this writ petition was filed
wherein only the order dated 03.09.2013
(order passed in Departmental Appeal) was
challenged, however, later on by way of
amendment, order dated 30.01.2004 whereby
punishment
awarded
in
disciplinary
proceedings was also challenged.

6. Sri Shrinath Singh, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Swapnesh Singh,
learned counsel for petitioner has placed
reliance upon judgments of this Court in
Ram Kishan vs. State of U.P. and others,
2020:AHC:7131,
Vishwanath
Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P. and
others,
2023:AHC-LKO:59434
and
Gulab Dutt Dubey vs. State of U.P. and
others,
2024:AHC-LKO:22623
and
submitted that in the impugned order,
concerned respondent has not assigned any
consideration about conduct of petitioner
leading to his conviction and has prayed
that impugned order be set aside and
petitioner may be given consequential
benefits.
8 All. Indra Mohan Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.
677

7. In rebuttal, Sri C.B. Gupta, learned
counsel for respondents has placed reliance
upon judgment of Supreme Court in
Deputy Director of Collegiate Education
(Admin.) Madras vs. S. Nagoor Meera,
AIR 1995 SC 1364 as well as referred
Clause
12(A)(1)
and 12(E)
of
The
Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937.
For reference, relevant Clause 12(E) is
quoted below :-

"12(E)
-
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in Rules 12 to 12 D -

(i) Where any penalty is imposed on a
servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his
conviction on a criminal charge; or

(ii) Where the disciplinary authority is
satisfied for reasons recorded by it in writing that it is
not reasonable practicable to hold an inquiry in the
manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary
authority may consider the circumstances of the case
and make such orders thereon as it deems fit."

8.
I
have
considered
above
submissions and perused the records.

9.
Before
considering
the
rival
submissions, it would be necessary to
reproduce reasons given by the trial Court
while convicting the petitioner and others
for committing an offence of culpable
homicide
not
amounting
to
murder,
voluntarily causing hurt and mischief in
furtherance of common intention of all
accused :-

"उपरोक्त लववेचना से यह स्पष्ट है लक पी.डब्ल्यू 1
नरेश कुमार जो लक स्वयं चुर्ैल है ने अलभयोजन पक्ष का अपने
साक्ष्य द्वारा पूणट समथटन लकया है तथा इस गवाह के साक्ष्य को
लचलकत्सीय साक्ष्य का समथटन भी प्राि है । इस प्रकार से यह गवाह
पूणटतया लवश्वनीय है तथा घर्ना की ररपोर्ट भी लबना लकसी देरी के
अंलकत करा दी गयी है । लदनांक 24.8.98 के आदेशप्‌त्र से यह
स्पष्ट है लक इसमें मेरे पूवाटलिकारी द्वारा यह स्पष्ट लकया, गया है लक
वाद की कायटवाही के दौरान लवमला देवी की मृत्यु हो गयी है। इस
प्रकार से लवमला देवी जो लक दूसरी चुर्ैल साक्षी थी मृत्यु हो जाने के
कारण साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत नहीं हो पाई है। अलभयुक्तगण द्वारा मारपीर्
करके मृतक भगवान दास, लवमला देवी व नरेश कुमार को चोर्ें
पहुंचाये जाने से सम्बलन्ित मोलर्व भी अलभयोजन पक्ष की ओर से
पी.डब्ल्यू. 1 नरेश कुमार की साक्ष्य द्वारा लसद्ध कर लदया गया है।

उपरोक्त लववेचना से मैं इस लनष्प्कषट पर आता ह ाँ लक
प.डब्लू. 1 नरेश कुमार की साक्ष्य एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ि
लचलकत्सकीय एवं अन्य साक्ष्य से यह लसद्ध हो गया है लक लदनांक
14-3-88 को लगभग 11 बजे रात कम्पनी बाग कैन्र्नमैन्र् बोडट
द्वारा क्वार्र थाना सदर बाजार लजला आगरा में अलभयुक्तगण द्वारा
वादी नरेश कुमार के क्वार्र में घुसकर वादी नरेश कुमार, उसके
भगवान दास तथा उसकी मााँ लवमला देवी को घर में घुसकर ईंर्-
पत्थर व डण्डों से मारापीर्ा गया लजससे लक उनको चोर्ें आयीं और
इन्हीं चोर्ों के के कारण लदनांक 15-3-88 को भगवान दास की
मृत्यु अस्पताल में हो गयी। इस प्रकार से अलभयोजन ने अपना पक्ष
अलभयुक्तगण के लवरूद्ध संदेह से परे लसद्ध कर लदया है।

जहां तक िारा- 323, 425 भा०दं०सं० का प्रश्न है
यह आरोप अलभयुक्तगण के लवरूद्ध संदेह से परे लसद्ध हो गये हैं। अब
देखना यह है लक अलभयुक्तगण िारा 302 भा०दं०सं० में दलण्डत
होने योग्य हैं या िारा 304 भा०दं०सं० में दलण्डत होने योग्य हैं।

प्रथम सूचना ररपोर्ट में केवल इतना है लक
अलभयुक्तगण ने ईंर्-पत्थर लाठी डण्डों से घुसकर मारपीर् लकया था
अथाटत ऐसा कोई तथ्य लक अलभ-युक्तगण ने यह मारपीर् भगवान
दास की मृत्यु काररत करने के आशय से जानबूझ कर की थी व उन्हें
यह ज्ञान था लक इस मारपीर् से भगवान दास की मृत्यु हो जायेगी।
प्रथम सूचना ररपोर्ट में या साक्ष्य में नहीं आया है। जबलक िारा 302
भा०दं०सं० के ललये यह आवश्यक है लक अलभयुक्तगण का आशय
मृत्यु काररत करना हो तथा अलभयुक्तगण को यह ज्ञान हो लक उनके
इस कायट से मृत्यु काररत हो जायेगी, यही नहीं अलभयुक्तगण पर कोई
घातक हलथयार होना भी नहीं कहे गये हैं। इस प्रकार से अलभयुक्तगण
उपरोक्त साक्ष्य की लववेचना के अनुसार िारा 302 भा०दं०सं० में
दलण्डत होने योग्य नहीं है क्योंलक उनका आशय मृत्यु काररत करने
का नहीं था। लकन्तु पत्रावली पर उपलब्ि साक्ष्य से यह स्पष्ट है लक
अलभयुक्तगण ने लाठी-डण्डों व ईंर्-पत्थर से मृतक भगवान दास व
लवमला देवी तथा नरेश कुमार को चोर्ें पहुंचायी थीं लजससे भगवान
दास की मृत्यु हो गयी थी। पी.डब्ल्यु. 4 डा० आर.सी. जैन के
अनुसार मृतक के शरीर पर 5 चोर्ें थीं तथा मृतक की मृत्यु लसर पर
आई चोर्ों की वजह से हुई थी। पी.डब्ल्यू. 9 डा० लवजय कुमार
लमत्तल के अनुसार भगवान दास इमरजेन्सी में गम्भीर लसर की चोर्ों
के कारण भती हुये थे। इस प्रकार से यह स्पष्ट है लक मृतक भगवान
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
दास को अलभयुक्तगण द्वारा एक राय होकर गम्भीर चोर्ें पहुंचायी गयी
थीं लकन्तु यह चोर्ें घातक अस्त्रों से नहीं पहुंचायी गयी थी। साक्ष्य
एवं पररलस्थलतयों से यह ज्ञात होता है लक अलभयुक्तगण के संज्ञान में
यह था लक उनके द्वारा की गयी मारपीर् से घातक चोर्ें आ सकती
थी लजससे लक मृत्यु भी काररत हो सकती थी और उन्हीं चोर्ों के
कारण मृतक भगवान दास की मृत्यु लदनांक 15.3.88 को हो गयी।
अतः इस पररलस्थलतयों में अलभयुक्तगण उपरोक्त लववेचना के अनुसार
िारा 304/34 भा०दं०सं० के अन्तगटत दलण्डत होने योग्य है।"

10. Learned Senior Advocate has
vehemently argued that while passing the
impugned order, conduct of petitioner
leading to conviction was not considered
whereas argument of learned counsel for
respondents was that since conviction was
for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, a serious offence, and petitioner
was directly involved in the crime and that
impugned order was based on the judgment
and order of trial Court, therefore, there
was no requirement to assign specific
reason or to mention specific conduct of the
petitioner.

11. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the records.

12. Above referred Regulation 12(E)
provides an exception to Rule 12 that no
order imposing any penalty specified in
Clause 4 to 8 of Rule 11 shall be made
except after an inquiry held as far as may
be in the manner provided in the Rule 12
and Rule 12-A except where any penalty
imposed on service on a ground of conduct
which has led to his conviction in a
criminal case, therefore, in present case
where impugned order was passed without
conducting proper inquiry is not an illegal
order.

13. Now Court proceeds to consider
whether the conduct of petitioner which has
led his conviction is mandatory to be
mentioned in impugned order of imposing
any penalty or if the contents of impugned
order are on basis of perusal of the order of
conviction wherein petitioner has a direct role
would be sufficient.

14. Court takes note of a judgment on
which learned Senior Advocate appearing for
petitioner has placed reliance which are
essentially based on a judgment passed by
Supreme Court in Shankar Das vs. Union of
India, (1985) 2 SCC 358 wherein employee
was convicted under Section 409 IPC and on
basis of conviction, he was dismissed from
service and since it was a pity offence,
therefore, in given circumstances, penalty of
dismissal was interfered making observation
that right to impose a penalty carries with it a
duty to act justly considering a ground of
conduct which has led to conviction of
employee.

15. In aforesaid circumstances, Court is
of the view that only on a ground that
conduct of petitioner led to his conviction
was not specifically mentioned in impugned
order would not render the order impugned
absolutely
illegal
since
concerned
respondents have taken note of order of
conviction and punishment and considered
the gravity of misconduct and an order of
dismissal from service was passed.

16. I have already mentioned relevant
paragraph of judgment of conviction that
petitioner along with other accused were
directly involved in committing offence of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
voluntarily causing hurt and mischief with
common intention of all accused, therefore,
role of petitioner in committing said crime
was direct and specific.

17. In view of above, this Court does
not find any illegality in the impugned
order whereby petitioner was dismissed
8 All. Nevtej Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
679
from service after taking note of gravity of
offence and judgment of conviction.

18. Accordingly, this Court does not
find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order, hence, present writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 679
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 10716 of 2021

Nevtej Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sanjay Chaturvedi, Sanjay Kumar
Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
petitioner
obtained
State
employment
fraudulently
or
the
State
functionaries committed an unintentional error
in issuance of Certificate for Dependent of
Freedom Fighter to the petitioner.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Assistant Teacher - Dependents
of Freedom Fighter (DFF) Certificate - Alleged
Forgery - Clerical Error - No Misrepresentation
- Fraud must be proved - Termination illegal -
Reinstatement ordered.
Held
:
Entitlement of the petitioner under the DFF
category was never in dispute. The sole basis
for termination was the observation that the
certificate dated 04.04.2008 was not traceable
at serial no. 1114 in the office records.
Subsequent issuance of a fresh certificate dated
01.04.2021
by
the
competent
authority
categorically reaffirmed the correctness of the
petitioner's DFF status. Only the endorsement of
the certificate dated 04.04.2008 at serial no.
1114 was questioned, and the Court found that
this was not within the domain of the petitioner,
nor could he have played any role in
maintaining
the
relevant
records
of
the
concerned office. No fraud, as alleged in the
impugned order, appeared to have been played
by the petitioner. Issuance of a certificate owing
to an error or oversight of the competent
authority cannot be construed as forgery,
particularly when the same authority has
subsequently
issued
a
rectified
certificate
acknowledging the mistake. If a certificate is
issued
due to the fault, negligence, or
administrative lapse of the issuing authority,
and there is no evidence of manipulation,
falsification,
or
misrepresentation
by
the
petitioner, it does not amount to forgery in law.
Where an appointment is granted due to the
department's own mistake and the beneficiary
has not committed any misrepresentation,
punitive action cannot be taken unless mala fide
intent is proved. Fraud must be established by
cogent evidence; mere irregularity in issuance of
a document by the authority does
not
automatically amount to fraud or forgery on the
part of the recipient. Order dated 31.07.2021
quashed; petitioner directed to be reinstated
forthwith. (Paras 11-24)

CASE LAW CITED
1. State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma, 2019
Supreme (SC) 1158;
2. Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022
Supreme (SC) 982;
3. Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P.,
2024:AHC:177954;
4. Ahire Ajinkya Shankar v. Indian Coast Guard,
2023 SCC OnLine Del 5726;
5. Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12
SCC 342.

List of Acts
 Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Assistant Teacher; DFF Certificate; Forgery
Allegation; Certificate Verification; Clerical Error;