# Jai Prakash Singh S/O Tribhuwan Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 499
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1850 of 2010
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-prakash-singh-s-o-tribhuwan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-54251
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

2 All. Jai Prakash Singh S/O Tribhuwan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
499

Order in SPLA-190 of 2026 State of U.P. and 2 others vs. Mayank Yadav

As the judgment dated 19.07.2023 was passed in light of the benefits granted in Writ C No.
9773 of 2023, Sakshi and 77 others vs. State of U.P. and others, therefore, in light of the above
observations and findings, the appeal is also allowed. Order dated 19.07.2023 is set aside. There is
no order as to cost.

Order in SPLA-184 of 2026State of U.P. and 4 others vs. Satakshi Parasari and 45 others

As the judgment dated 03.08.2023 was passed in light of the benefits granted in Writ C No.
9773 of 2023, Sakshi and 77 others vs. State of U.P. and others, therefore, in light of the above
observations and findings, the appeal is also allowed. Order dated 03.08.2023 is set aside. There is
no order as to cost.

Order in SPLA-187 of 2026 State of U.P. and 5 others vs. Km. Archana Shukla & 2
others-

As the judgment dated 06.09.2023 was passed in light of the benefits granted in Writ C No.
9773 of 2023, Sakshi and 77 others vs. State of U.P. and others, therefore, in light of the above
observations and findings, the appeal is also allowed. Order dated 06.09.2023 is set aside. There is
no order as to cost.

Order in SPLA-185 of 2026; State of U.P. and 3 others vs. Divya Dwivedi and others:

As the two Executive order (circulars) have been held to be transgressing the Regulations,
2014 with regard to providing additional chances to clear exams, therefore in light of the
observations and findings the appeal is allowed. The order dated 19.01.2024 is set aside. There is
no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 499
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ A No. 1850 of 2010

Jai Prakash Singh S/O Tribhuwan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of dismissal order on the charge of unauthorized absence without recording finding of its' being a
willful absence.
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Dismissal - Disciplinary proceeding - Charge of unauthorized absence from
duty while working as the Constable - Petitioner's statement that he had repetitively gone to
Mainpuri for joining at the transferred post but he was not allowed to join as the transfer order
had not reached Mainpuri, has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit - Petitioner's
explanation was not considered - No finding on unauthorized absence being a willful absence
was recorded - Effect : (E-1)
Held : The impugned dismissal order has been passed without taking into consideration the petitioner's
explanation that he was absent firstly because of his illness and thereafter because he was not allowed to join
his duties. The dismissal order does not take into consideration these aspects of the matter and it merely
records that the petitioner had been absent unauthorisedly, without recording any finding that the
unauthorised absence of the petitioner was willful - Therefore, in any case, the failure of the petitioner to
report for duty after passing of the transfer order dated 26.03.2008, cannot be said to be due to any fault of
the petitioner himself. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of any other person and he cannot
be penalized for this reason - The petitioner is entitled to get all benefits consequential to quashing of the
dismissal order. [Para 17, 22 and 25]

Case Law Cited
Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another, (2012) 3 SCC 178; Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 2010; Writ Petition No. 3126 (S/S) of 1991, Surendra Nath Tripathi vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. decided on 28.10.2006; Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another: (2012) 3 SCC 178; Writ A
No. 36187 of 2013, Smt. Sadhna Gupta vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors. decided on 24.07.2013; Suresh Chandra
Belwal, Sub-Inspector vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) SCC OnLine Alld. 10162 - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Subordinate Police Officers/ Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 14(1).

List of Keywords
Dismissal, Suspension, Sick, Unauthorized absence, Guilty, Treatment, Transfer order, Reporting, Willful,
Compelling circumstances, Disproportionate, Grave misconduct, Irregularity, Unfitness, Administrative ground,
Fault, Explanation, Service benefits.

Case Arising From
Impugned orders dated 14.01.2008 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and 22.10.2009
passed by the Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Ashutosh Shukla, K.S. Rai, Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Suresh Chandra Verma,
Vishwajeet Rai.
Advs. for the Respondents : S. K. Khare, S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.S. Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Khare, the learned
Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated
14.01.2009 (which is wrongly mentioned in the order as 14.01.2009) passed by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, dismissing the petitioner from his service on the post of
constable in Civil Police. The petitioner had challenged the dismissal order by filing an appeal
which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the Inspector General
2 All. Jai Prakash Singh S/O Tribhuwan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
501
of Police, Lucknow Zone and validity of the appellate order has also been challenged through this
Writ Petition.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a constable in civil
police in the month of March, 1975 and he was posted at District Sitapur from where he was
transferred to Lucknow in the year 1993. On 27.10.2006, the petitioner was assigned Mela duty at
Garhmukteshwar where he remained till 02.12.2006, but after returning from the Mela duty, he did
not report for duty. The petitioner claims to have fallen sick and to have sent its information to the
Inspector Sahadatganj Police Station, to the Circle Officer as well as to the Superintendent of
Police.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension by means of an order dated 29.01.2008 on the
ground that he did not report after coming back from the mela duty. While he was already under
suspension, the petitioner was transferred from Lucknow to Mainpuri on administrative grounds by
means of an order dated 26.03.2008.

5. On 14.01.2009, the Senior Superintendent of Police passed the impugned dismissal order
wherein it is stated that while the petitioner was working as a constable and was posted at Police
Station Sahadatganj, Lucknow, he was assigned duty in a mela at Garhmukteshwar. The petitioner
was sent for the mela duty at 06:50 hours on 27.10.2006. After completion of mela duty the
petitioner did not report to Police Station Sahadatganj, Lucknow and he became absent
unauthorizedly. Circle Officer, Sarojani Nagar has held in the report dated 11.12.2008 submitted in
the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner under Rule 14(1) of U.P. Subordinate
Police Officers/ Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules of 1991) that the petitioner's unauthorized absence was reported on 12.12.2006. The
petitioner did not submit any information regarding his absence for a period of about 1 year and 3
months. The petitioner was guilty of autocratic behavior, indiscipline and negligence in
performance of duty.

6. A copy of the aforesaid findings were sent to the petitioner along with a show cause notice
dated 18.12.2008 asking him to submit an explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from
service under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Rules of 1991. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated
09.01.2009 stating that he performed mela duty at Garhmukteshwar till 26.10.2006 but thereafter
he had fallen ill, he was suffering from severe pain, he had sent an information about the same to
his office and got some medicines but he did not get any relief. After returning to Lucknow, he had
sent information of his illness to the Superintendent of Police-West, Circle Officer, Bazar Khala
and Inspector Incharge Sahadatganj. He was treated by doctors for sciatica, diarrhea and jaundice.
After being treated for some time at Lucknow, he got relief in diarrhea but he did not get any relief
in his pain. As a lot of money had been spent in his treatment and there was scarcity of money, his
family members took him to his native place Bharawan, where his treatment continued. Meanwhile
the petitioner received the suspension order and thereafter, he came to police lines, Lucknow for
getting himself treated in the police hospital. He was told to first seek permission for joining from
Reserve Inspector and only thereafter his joining would be recorded. The petitioner obtained
permission from the Reserve Inspector and he went to Gadna Munshi (Attendance Clerk) who told
him to obtain permission from the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner showed him the
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suspension order which mentioned that during suspension period, the petitioner would ensure
staying in the police lines of the District but no heed was paid to his request. The petitioner tried to
meet the Superintendent of Police-West but he was not allowed to meet him. The petitioner was
quite distressed, he was not capable of walking and, therefore, he started getting himself treated in
Balrampur Hospital and sent this information to the concerned officers through registered post.
After recovering, the petitioner again went for joining whereupon he was told that he had been
transferred to Mainpuri and he had been relieved in absentia on 04.04.2008.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Mainpuri where he was told that the transfer order had not
been received there and he should bring a copy of the transfer order from Lucknow. He kept his
articles in the police lines in Mainpuri and thereafter returned to Lucknow and met the concerned
official who told the petitioner to go to Mainpuri and said that he would sent the order to Mainpuri.
The petitioner again went to Mainpuri and kept on waiting for the transfer order for several days
but the order did not reach there. He again came to Lucknow and met the concerned official who
told that he had forgotten to send the order. The petitioner requested him to hand him over a copy
of the transfer order so that he could report at the transferred place but the official told that he could
not give the transfer order by hand and that he would send the order to Mainpuri. The petitioner
again went to Mainpuri and kept on waiting for the order for several days but the order did not
reach there. The petitioner again returned to Lucknow and met the concerned official who got
angry and said he would not hand over the order. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to obtain the
transfer order under the Right to Information Act but it was not provided to him. The petitioner
went to the residence of Senior Superintendent of Police but could not meet him due to the later's
engagements. The following day he could meet the Superintendent of Police (Security) who told
that the transfer letter had already been sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri and the
petitioner should go there. The petitioner again went to Mainpuri but the letter had not reached
there. Thereafter the petitioner was given a letter on 03.11.2008 (and not a copy of the transfer
order). The petitioner again went to Mainpuri with the letter but the Superintendent of Police
declined to register his reporting for want of the transfer order.

8. The petitioner stated that he had been running between Lucknow and Mainpuri repetitively
and had spent a lot of money on it. When the petitioner got a notice from the Circle Officer, he
went to get his statement recorded but his statement was not recorded stating that first he should get
his reporting recorded and thereafter his statement would be recorded. Copies of his medical
documents were also not received stating that the same would be received only after his reporting is
recorded.

9. The petitioner further stated that he had served the police department without any blemish
since the year 1975. He had actually fallen ill and the financial constraints restricted his treatment
and delayed his recovery. He had been placed under suspension, he was transferred to a district
which is 460 km away from his home district and he had suffered immensely both mentally and
financially.

10. All the submissions made by the petitioner in his reply were turned down, the
Superintendent of Police held him guilty of unauthorized absence from 27.10.2006 to 04.04.2008
2 All. Jai Prakash Singh S/O Tribhuwan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
503
and he was dismissed from service. The appellate authority has simply affirmed the dismissal
order.

11. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that the Inquiry Officer
had declined to record his statement unless he joined his duties. The petitioner was not permitted to
join his duties without a copy of the transfer order and his evidence was not recorded by the Inquiry
Officer. The inquiry report has been submitted without recording his evidence.

12. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties opposing the writ petition
wherein it has inter alia been stated that the petitioner deliberately absented himself from duty
without any authority. Through the letter dated 09.09.2008, the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri
was requested to record reporting of the petitioner at Mainpuri.

13. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has stated that he had gone to join at Mainpuri but
his joining was not accepted and thereafter he had sent a fax massage for his joining at Mainpuri
yet he was not allowed to join in absence of original transfer order, which was never provided to
him.

14. Assailing the validity of the dismissal order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the charge of unauthorized absence from duty cannot be decided without deciding
the question whether absence was willful or it was because of some compelling circumstances. In
support of this contention the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another: (2012) 3 SCC 178.

15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the punishment of dismissal
from service is too harsh, disproportionate and not commensurate with the nature of the charges
proved against the petitioner. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R.K. Sharma: 2022 SCC OnLine SC
2010.

16. He has submitted that the penalty of dismissal can only be imposed in case of grave
misconduct indicating incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service as held by this Court
in Surendra Nath Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ Petition No. 3126 (S/S) of 1991 decided
on 28.10.2006.

17. The petitioner's contention that his evidence was not recorded on the pretext that till his
reporting is recorded, his evidence will not be recorded and his reporting was not recorded due to
unavailability of the transfer order, has also not been denied. The impugned dismissal order has
been passed without taking into consideration the petitioner's explanation that he was absent firstly
because of his illness and thereafter because he was not allowed to join his duties. The dismissal
order does not take into consideration these aspects of the matter and it merely records that the
petitioner had been absent unauthorisedly, without recording any finding that the unauthorised
absence of the petitioner was wilfull.
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. In in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another: (2012) 3 SCC
178, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: -

"15. Rules 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964,
relates to all time maintaining integrity, devotion to duty and to do nothing which is unbecoming of
a government servant and reads as follows:

"3.General.-(1) Every government servant shall at all times?

(i) maintain absolute integrity;

(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and

(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant."

16. In the case of the appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary
authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of
a government servant. The question whether "unauthorised absence from duty" amounts to failure
of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant cannot be decided without
deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances.

17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not
possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty
without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not
always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain
from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident,
hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to
duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant.

18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is
made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of
such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct."

19. Therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner for his mere unauthorised absence, without
recording a finding that the unauthorised absence was wilful, is unsustainable in law in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and
another (supra).

20. Although no submission was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing
the validity of the petitioner's transfer during his suspension, in Smt. Sadhna Gupta v. State of
U.P. & 2 Ors., Writ A No. 36187 of 2013 decided on 24.07.2013. A Coordinate Bench of this
Court held that: -

 "9. ... where an employee is under suspension, occasion to transfer such an employee,
besides the fact that under the rules, it would not be permissible, but, even otherwise cannot be
justified for any reason whatsoever. It is not a case where the employee is being shifted from one
post to another to discharge her duties. She is already under suspension and is not supposed to
discharge her regular duties.

10. If that be so, there cannot be any administrative exigency so as to justify his/her
transfer from one post to another. Such an employee, who is not getting full salary, cannot
be compelled to disturb his/her entire establishments incurring extra expenses by shifting a
place particularly when he/she is not getting full salary of the office which is payable, if
2 All. Jai Prakash Singh S/O Tribhuwan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
505
he/she would not have been under suspension. Suspension though does not have the effect to
severing the relationship of employer and employee as such, but, definitely have the effect of
suspending such relationship to the extent that the employee cannot be compelled to
discharge his/her regular duties and the employer would not be obliged to pay full salary, if
so authorized under the rules.

11. It is always open to the employer to transfer employee as soon as suspension comes to
an end, and the incumbent is reinstated, but otherwise, neither I could find out any justification to
insist for transfer of a suspended employee nor any such justification has been provided/shown by
the respondents. It is in these facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation in declaring the
impugned order of transfer bad and illegal."

21. The aforesaid judgment was followed in Suresh Chandra Belwal, Sub-Inspector v.
State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) SCC OnLine Alld. 10162.

22. Therefore it appears that the petitioner was transferred from Lucknow to Mainpuri
purportedly on administrative grounds while he was under suspension, there was no administrative
ground for his transfer and his transfer was done in an illegal manner. The petitioner's specific
contention that he had repetitively gone to Mainpuri for joining at the transferred post but he was
not allowed to join as the transfer order had not reached Mainpuri, has not been specifically denied
in the counter affidavit. Therefore, in any case, the failure of the petitioner to report for duty after
passing of the transfer order dated 26.03.2008, cannot be said to be due to any fault of the petitioner
himself. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of any other person and he cannot be
penalized for this reason. The petitioner's explanation has not been dealt with appropriately by the
disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and the same have been rejected in a cursory
manner.

23. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated
14.01.2009 dismissing the petitioner from service and the appellate order dated 22.10.2009 are not
sustainable in law.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

25. The impugned orders dated 14.01.2008 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Lucknow and 22.10.2009 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow are
hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to get all benefits consequential to quashing of the
dismissal order. The arrears of service benefits payable to the petitioner shall be calculated and paid
to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

26. This writ petition is pending since the year 2010 whereas the petitioner was inducted in
service in March, 1975 and he was dismissed in January, 2009. At the time of filing of the writ
petition the petitioner was already aged about 55 years and presently the petitioner would have
attained the age of 70 years. In these circumstances, it would not be proper to permit fresh
disciplinary proceedings being held against the petitioner after giving a proper opportunity of
hearing. Accordingly, this liberty is not being granted.
----------
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 2 ILRA 506
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ A No. 2700 of 2014

Ram Kishore ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of disciplinary proceeding and punishment order passed against the charged person holding the
post of Accountant on the allegation of irregularity caused in sanctioning the loan, though the Accountant has
no role in sanctioning the loan.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment - Stoppage of two annual increments in
the salary with cumulative effect - Inquiry - Charge of sanctioning a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- in
violation of guidelines and of disbursing the installment without following the time limit was
leveled - The petitioner, being an Accountant, had no role in sanctioning the loan and making
inspection before sanctioning the loan - Relevance - However, the petitioner was held guilty of
charges - Validity challenged : (E-1)
Held : Recommending sanction of loan fell within the purview of duties of the field officer and sanctioning the
loan was within the duty of the branch manager and the accountant has no role to play in it. Therefore, the
petitioner can in no manner be held guilty for the first charge - Moreover, making inspection and ensuring
proper utilization of the loan amount and reporting misutilization of loan amount or improper execution of the
project falls within the duties of the field officer and ensuring proper utilization of the loan falls within the
duties of the branch manager. The petitioner, who was merely an accountant, had no role to play in these
processes. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the second charge also. [Para 15 and 16]

List of Acts
Co-operative Societies Employee Service Regulations, 1975 - Regulation 84 (i); Circular dated 18/19.02.1976.

List of Keywords
Punishment, Stoppage of two annual increments in the salary with cumulative effect, Disciplinary proceedings,
Sanction of loan, Local inspection, Verification report, Utilization certificate, Misappropriate, Show cause
notice, Explanation, Fair chance of defence, Decision making process, Inspection report, Misutilization of loan
amount, Unsustainable in law.

Case Arising From
Punishment order dated 25.06.2009 passed by Managing Director and the Order dismissing the appeal by the
appellate authority against the punishment order.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Piyush Asthana.
Advs. for the Respondents : Singh Vinod Kumar, Balram Yadav.