# Inspector(Civil Police) Rahul Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 87
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-18
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 15111 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/inspector-civil-police-rahul-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47324
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - U.P. Police Officers of
the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment
and
Appeal)
Rules,
1991
-
U.P.
Government
Servants
(Disposal
of
Representation Against Adverse Annual
Confidential
Reports
and
Allied
Matters) Rules, 1995 -The petitioner is
discharging his duties as Inspector in the
Police Department, his Appellate Authority
would be the Deputy Inspector General of
Police and his Revisional Authority would be
the Inspector General of Police but against
the impugned office memo dated 01.07.2021
he may not approach any of the authority
i.e., the Appellate Authority or the Revisional
Authority. Besides, the petitioner would have
not approached any authority under the
Rules, 1995 for the reason that the order
impugned has been passed by the Highest
Authority of the Home Department of the
State of U.P. Therefore, the impugned office
memo
dated
01.07.2021
is
not
only
unwarranted and uncalled for being passed
without having any prescription under the
relevant Rules, 1991 but has been passed by
such authority against which no appeal or
revision or representation can be filed before
the Competent Authority. (Para 7)

The right of appeal or revision or statutory
representation of an employee may not be
curtailed/ washed off and if such inaction has
been done by any of the authority, the said
punishment order would be nullity in the eyes of
law. (Para 8)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. Inspector(Civil Police) Rahul Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
87
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality
of the action taken by the employer. The
reinstatement of such an employee, which
is preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that
the action taken by the employer is ultra
vires the relevant statutory provisions or
the principles of natural justice, entitles the
employee to claim full back wages."

 (emphasis added)

6. Considering the entirety of the
issue and the decision of this Court in re;
U.P.S.R.T.C. (supra), I find that the
impugned order dated 25.11.2017 passed
by opposite party no.3 is not sustainable in
law, therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside being arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the impugned order dated
25.11.2017 passed by opposite party no.3.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued
commanding the opposite parties to make
payment of full back wages to the
petitioner with all consequential benefits
including seniority etc., with promptness,
preferably within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order, failing which the petitioner shall
be entitled for the interest at the rate of 8%
from the date the dues accrued till the date
of its actual payment.

8. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A87
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.08.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 15111 of 2021

Inspector(Civil Police) Rahul Shukla
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - U.P. Police Officers of
the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment
and
Appeal)
Rules,
1991
-
U.P.
Government
Servants
(Disposal
of
Representation Against Adverse Annual
Confidential
Reports
and
Allied
Matters) Rules, 1995 -The petitioner is
discharging his duties as Inspector in the
Police Department, his Appellate Authority
would be the Deputy Inspector General of
Police and his Revisional Authority would be
the Inspector General of Police but against
the impugned office memo dated 01.07.2021
he may not approach any of the authority
i.e., the Appellate Authority or the Revisional
Authority. Besides, the petitioner would have
not approached any authority under the
Rules, 1995 for the reason that the order
impugned has been passed by the Highest
Authority of the Home Department of the
State of U.P. Therefore, the impugned office
memo
dated
01.07.2021
is
not
only
unwarranted and uncalled for being passed
without having any prescription under the
relevant Rules, 1991 but has been passed by
such authority against which no appeal or
revision or representation can be filed before
the Competent Authority. (Para 7)

The right of appeal or revision or statutory
representation of an employee may not be
curtailed/ washed off and if such inaction has
been done by any of the authority, the said
punishment order would be nullity in the eyes of
law. (Para 8)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

1. Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2012 (2)
LBESR 774 (SC) (followed)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Parul Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has assailed the office memo
dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Home
Department,
Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow, awarding special adverse entry to
the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn attention of this Court towards
Annexure No.5 of the writ petition, which
is the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in re: Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P.
& others reported in [2012 (2) LBESR 774
(SC) by submitting that the punishment of
special adverse entry is not provided under
the relevant rules known as U.P. Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
(here-in-after referred to as the "Rules,
1991"), therefore, such punishment may not
be awarded.

4. Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Standing
Counsel has submitted that so far as the
allegation levelled in the punishment order
is concerned, it appears prima-facie that the
petitioner has committed some misconduct,
however, this punishment is not prescribed
under Rules, 1991. She has submitted that
there is statutory modalities to deal with
such
punishment
by
preferring
a
representation to the Competent Authority
under the relevant provisions, namely, U.P.
Government
Servants
(Disposal
of
Representation Against Adverse Annual
Confidential Reports and Allied Matters)
Rules, 1995 (here-in-after referred to as the
"Rules, 1995").

5. Ms. Bajpai has further submitted
that since the impugned punishment has not
been awarded to the petitioner after
conducting the departmental enquiry in
terms of Rules, 1991, therefore, this
punishment order may not be tested under
the provisions of Rules, 1991.

6. On being confronted the learned
Standing Counsel about the jurisdiction of
the authority who has passed the order
inasmuch as the order impugned has been
passed by the Highest Authority of the
Home Department i.e. the Additional Chief
Secretary of the Home Department, Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow against the petitioner
who is serving on the post of Inspector and
on account of the impugned order of
punishment, the statutory remedy of the
petitioner to file appeal or revision has been
gone away inasmuch as against such order
the petitioner would not be able to file any
statutory appeal before the Appellate
Authority, the learned Standing Counsel
could not justify the order on this point.

7. The petitioner is discharging his
duties
as
Inspector
in
the
Police
Department, his Appellate Authority would
be the Deputy Inspector General of Police
and his Revisional Authority would be the
Inspector General of Police but against the
impugned office memo dated 01.07.20201
he may not approach any of the authority
i.e.
the Appellate Authority
or
the
Revisional
Authority.
Besides,
the
petitioner would have not approached any
8 All. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
89
authority under the Rules,1995 for the
reason that the order impugned has been
passed by the Highest Authority of the
Home Department of the State of U.P.
Therefore, the impugned office memo
dated 01.07.2021 is not only unwarranted
and uncalled for being passed without
having any prescription under the relevant
service Rules, 1991 but has been passed by
such authority against which no appeal or
revision or representation can be filed
before the Competent Authority. The
impugned office memo dated 01.07.2021 is
prima facie an order passed without
jurisdiction, therefore, it may not sustain in
the eyes of law.

8. The right of appeal or revision or
statutory representation of an employee
may not be curtailed/ washed off and if
such inaction has been done by any of the
authority, the said punishment order would
be nullity in the eyes of law.

9. In view of the above, the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

10. A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued
quashing
the
order
dated
01.07.2021, passed by the Additional Chief
Secretary,
Department
of
Home,
Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow, which is contained as Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition, being illegal,
unwarranted and without jurisdictional
order and also in violation of the dictum of
Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Vijay Singh
(supra) as the impugned punishment has
not been prescribed under the Rules, 1991.

11. Consequences to follow.

12. However, it is always open to the
authority/ authorities concerned to pass
appropriate orders, but by following due
procedure of law.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A89
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH
CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 15151 of 2020

Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajendra Kumar, Aarohi Bhalla, Sunil
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Vigilance Enquiry - the
vigilance enquiry cannot be initiated on the
same set of facts which has been inquired into
vide a departmental enquiry. In the present
case the vigilance enquiry conducted against the
petitioner is regarding disproportionate assets
which is entirely different from the grounds of
the departmental enquiry. (para 31)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Dr. Dinesh Chandra Mishra Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. Writ Petition No. 112 (S/B) of 2004

2. The St. of Assam & anr. Vs J.N. Roy Biswas
AIR 1975 SC 2277

3. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana
(2006) 12 SCC 28