# Laljee v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1018
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-22
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 7815 of 2024
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laljee-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53846
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., Raj Kr. Singh Suryvanshi

Issues for consideration
Whether the services of an employee who
acquires a disability during his/her service, are
to be dispensed with or efforts are to be made
by the employer for shifting him to a suitable
9 All. Laljee Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1019
post and in the absence thereto, to continue
him on supernumerary post until a suitable post
is available?

Headnotes:
A. Service Law - Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016: Section 20(4); The
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995: Section 47 -
Where an employee acquires a disability
during his service, his services are not to
be dispensed with rather efforts are to be
made by the employer for shifting him to a
suitable post and in the absence thereto,
to continue him on supernumerary post
until a suitable post is available. (Para 16)

The petitioner had been appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in the year 2013 and was
working under the respondents no. 6 and 7
when he suffered a brain stroke on 2.8.2016
which rendered him unable to carry out his
duties. Though he submitted his joining on
20.8.2024 but he has not been permitted to join
on account of report of the committee per which
the petitioner is incapable of doing any teaching
work. (Para 11)

As per provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act,
2016
no
government
employer
can
dispense with or reduce in rank an
employee who acquired disability during
his or her service. The proviso to Section
20(4) of the Act, 2016 provides that if an
employee after acquiring disability is not
suitable for the post he is holding, he shall
be shifted to some other post with same
pay scale and benefits. (Para 14)

The second proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section
20 of the Act, 2016 provides that if it is not
possible to adjust the employee against
any
post
he
can
be
kept
on
a
supernumerary post until a suitable post is
available
or
he
attains
the
age
of
superannuation whichever is earlier. (Para
15)

Despite the claim of the petitioner of he having
suffered brain stroke and medical prescriptions
of the said fact have been annexed in the writ
petition, no medical board has been constituted
by the respondents to examine the petitioner.
(Para 12)

Although no medical board had been formed,
from perusal of the report of the committee
dated 9.10.2024, it emerges that the said
committee had been formed in pursuance of
letter dated 4.10.2024 as sent by the District
Inspector of Schools to the Chief Medical
Officer,
Barabanki,
for
sending
a
senior
physician for evaluation of the petitioner. The
committee's report dated 9.10.2024 would
indicate that the senior physician appointed by
the CMO, Barabanki was also the part of the
committee. The decision of the committee and
as per the medical certificate produced by the
petitioner, he has not been found fit for doing
teaching work. Thus it is apparent that even
the respondents on the basis of the said
report of the committee are of the view
that teaching work cannot be assigned to
the petitioner yet at the same time
considering the provisions of 20(4) of the
Act 2016, alternative post has to be
identified for the petitioner. (Para 18)

Writ petition is disposed of with direction to the
District Inspector of Schools Barabanki i.e. the
respondent no. 5 to act in consonance with the
provisions of the Act, 2016 and the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ch. Joseph (infra) by identifying a suitable post
for the petitioner with the same pay scale and
service benefits. If it is not possible to adjust
him on any post he be kept on a supernumerary
post till a suitable post is available or he attains
the age of superannuation whichever is earlier.
(Para 19)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
Ch. Joseph Vs. The Telangana State Road
Transport Corporation & other, 2025 LiveLaw
(SC) 763 (Para 7)

List of Acts
The
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equa

## Text

1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was not one of compassionate appointment.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where
an appointment order could only be issued
by an authorized officer after obtaining
approval of competent authority and the
said appointment order having been issued
by lack of authority, would be a nullity in
the eyes of law. Here, the said principle
would not be applicable considering the
fact that compassionate appointment is an
exception to the main rule and the fact that
the petitioner continued to serve on the
higher post after he had been appointed and
has also retired on attaining the age of
superannuation while working on a higher
post. Thus the said judgement would have
no applicability in the facts of the case.

29. So far as the judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Premlata (supra) is concerned, the same
pertains to Hon'ble Supreme Court having
held that the appointment of a dependent on
compassionate grounds would be to a post
held by the deceased employee. There
cannot be any dispute to the aforesaid
proposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court but in the instant case the
respondents had already appointed the
petitioner on a higher post in the year 1991
and the petitioner continued to work on the
higher post till his superannuation in the
year 2021 i.e. for the period of 30 years as
such the aforesaid judgement would have
no applicability in the facts of the instant
case.

30. As regards judgement of this
Court in the case of Shiv Dutt Sharma
(supra) though the same pertains to the
issue as to once a person having availed the
benefit of appointment on compassionate
grounds could again claim appointment on
higher post on compassionate grounds, has
been answered in the negative by this
Court. But in the case in hand, the
petitioner
has
already
been
given
compassionate appointment on a higher
post and he having served for more than 30
years has retired while working on a higher
post and as such the said judgement would
not be of any help to the respondents.

31. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The
orders impugned dated 14.12.1992 and
22.6.1993, copies of which are annexure 4
and 8 to the writ petition are set aside.

32. A writ of mandamus is issued
commanding the respondents to pay all
retiral dues of petitioner of the post of
Assistant Accountant / Clerk. Let the
respondents comply with this order within
a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1018
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ - A No. 7815 of 2024

Laljee ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satyanshu Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Raj Kr. Singh Suryvanshi

Issues for consideration
Whether the services of an employee who
acquires a disability during his/her service, are
to be dispensed with or efforts are to be made
by the employer for shifting him to a suitable
9 All. Laljee Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1019
post and in the absence thereto, to continue
him on supernumerary post until a suitable post
is available?

Headnotes:
A. Service Law - Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016: Section 20(4); The
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995: Section 47 -
Where an employee acquires a disability
during his service, his services are not to
be dispensed with rather efforts are to be
made by the employer for shifting him to a
suitable post and in the absence thereto,
to continue him on supernumerary post
until a suitable post is available. (Para 16)

The petitioner had been appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in the year 2013 and was
working under the respondents no. 6 and 7
when he suffered a brain stroke on 2.8.2016
which rendered him unable to carry out his
duties. Though he submitted his joining on
20.8.2024 but he has not been permitted to join
on account of report of the committee per which
the petitioner is incapable of doing any teaching
work. (Para 11)

As per provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act,
2016
no
government
employer
can
dispense with or reduce in rank an
employee who acquired disability during
his or her service. The proviso to Section
20(4) of the Act, 2016 provides that if an
employee after acquiring disability is not
suitable for the post he is holding, he shall
be shifted to some other post with same
pay scale and benefits. (Para 14)

The second proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section
20 of the Act, 2016 provides that if it is not
possible to adjust the employee against
any
post
he
can
be
kept
on
a
supernumerary post until a suitable post is
available
or
he
attains
the
age
of
superannuation whichever is earlier. (Para
15)

Despite the claim of the petitioner of he having
suffered brain stroke and medical prescriptions
of the said fact have been annexed in the writ
petition, no medical board has been constituted
by the respondents to examine the petitioner.
(Para 12)

Although no medical board had been formed,
from perusal of the report of the committee
dated 9.10.2024, it emerges that the said
committee had been formed in pursuance of
letter dated 4.10.2024 as sent by the District
Inspector of Schools to the Chief Medical
Officer,
Barabanki,
for
sending
a
senior
physician for evaluation of the petitioner. The
committee's report dated 9.10.2024 would
indicate that the senior physician appointed by
the CMO, Barabanki was also the part of the
committee. The decision of the committee and
as per the medical certificate produced by the
petitioner, he has not been found fit for doing
teaching work. Thus it is apparent that even
the respondents on the basis of the said
report of the committee are of the view
that teaching work cannot be assigned to
the petitioner yet at the same time
considering the provisions of 20(4) of the
Act 2016, alternative post has to be
identified for the petitioner. (Para 18)

Writ petition is disposed of with direction to the
District Inspector of Schools Barabanki i.e. the
respondent no. 5 to act in consonance with the
provisions of the Act, 2016 and the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ch. Joseph (infra) by identifying a suitable post
for the petitioner with the same pay scale and
service benefits. If it is not possible to adjust
him on any post he be kept on a supernumerary
post till a suitable post is available or he attains
the age of superannuation whichever is earlier.
(Para 19)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
Ch. Joseph Vs. The Telangana State Road
Transport Corporation & other, 2025 LiveLaw
(SC) 763 (Para 7)

List of Acts
The
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995; Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016.

List of Keywords
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Service,
disability,
suitable
post,
superannuation.

Appearances for Parties:
For Appellant: Satyanshu Ojha
For
Respondent:
C.S.C.,
Raj
Kr
Singh
Suryvanshi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is
taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Saharsh, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents
no. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and Shri R K Singh
Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 4.

3. Despite notice being issued to
respondents no. 6 and 7, none responds on
their behalf. As per office report dated
24.10.2024, the notice is deemed sufficient.

4. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that after he had been
appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year
2013 he suffered a brain stroke on 2.8.2016
which rendered him unable to carry out his
duties. After attaining some semblance of
fitness, the petitioner claims to have
submitted his joining on 20.8.2024 but he
has not been permitted to join.

5. In the meanwhile the respondents
formed a committee to examine the case of
the petitioner which has submitted its
report dated 9.10.2024, a copy of which is
annexure SCA-8 to the short counter
affidavit, per which it has been indicated
that as the petitioner is unable to carry out
teaching work on account of not being able
to write or to speak, as such teaching work
cannot be taken from him and he cannot be
permitted to join.
6. The argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that medical leave is
still outstanding and the respondents may
be directed to sanction medical leave and
further certain benefits flow out of the
provisions of The Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 per which the respondents may
consider the petitioner for being appointed
on an equivalent post.

7. In this regard learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance on
judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ch. Joseph vs The Telangana
State Road Transport Corporation &
other, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 763 to contend
that Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered
the applicability of the Act, 1995 and has
laid down the principles to be followed
where an employee has acquired disability
during his employment.

8.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner states that although in the said
judgement, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered Section 47 of the Act, 1995 yet
now the said section is pari materia to
section 20(4) of the Act, 2016 and thus it is
prayed that the respondents be directed to
consider the petitioner for alternative
employment and also to pay arrears of
salary with effect from 1.10.2021 after
sanctioning the same as medical leave with
pay.

9. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondents on the basis of
the averments contained in the counter
affidavit have argued that the petitioner
remained absent from the institution since
1.10.2021 and after a period of 3 years
made representation on 30.8.2024 for the
9 All. Laljee Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1021
purpose of being permitted to join which
has not found favour with the respondents
on account of he having absented himself.

10. Moreover, as per the report of
the committee dated 9.10.2024, a copy of
which is annexure 8 to the short counter
affidavit, the petitioner, on account of his
medical condition has not been found fit for
any teaching work and consequently he
cannot be permitted to join on account of
being unable to speak, read and write.

11. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
record it emerges that admittedly the
petitioner had been appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in the year 2013 and was
working under the respondents no. 6 and 7
when he suffered a brain stroke on 2.8.2016
which rendered him unable to carry out his
duties. Though he submitted his joining on
20.8.2024 but he has not been permitted to
join on account of report of the committee
per which the petitioner is incapable of
doing any teaching work.

12. Despite the claim of the
petitioner of he having suffered brain
stroke and medical prescriptions of the
said fact have been annexed in the writ
petition, no medical board has been
constituted by the respondents to examine
the petitioner.

13. In this regard, it would be apt
to consider the provisions of Section 20 of
the Act, 2016, which for the sake of
convenience is reproduced below:

 "20.
Non-discrimination
in
employment.-

 (1) No Government establishment
shall discriminate against any person with
disability in any matter relating to
employment:

 Provided that the appropriate
Government may, having regard to the type
of work carried on in any establishment, by
notification and subject to such conditions,
if any, exempt any establishment from the
provisions of this section.

 (2)
Every
Government
establishment shall provide reasonable
accommodation and appropriate barrier
free
and
conducive
environment
to
employees with disability.

 (3) No promotion shall be denied
to a person merely on the ground of
disability.

 (4) No Government establishment
shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an
employee who acquires a disability during
his or her service:

 Provided that, if an employee
after acquiring disability is not suitable for
the post he was holding, shall be shifted to
some other post with the same pay scale
and service benefits:

 Provided further that if it is not
possible to adjust the employee against any
post, he may be kept on a supernumerary
post until a suitable post is available or he
attains
the
age
of
superannuation,
whichever is earlier.

 (5) The appropriate Government
may frame policies for posting and transfer
of employees with disabilities."

14. As per provisions of Section
20(4) of the Act, 2016 no government
employer can dispense with or reduce in
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rank an employee who acquired disability
during his or her service. The proviso to
Section 20(4) of the Act, 2016 provides
that if an employee after acquiring
disability is not suitable for the post he is
holding, he shall be shifted to some other
post with same pay scale and benefits.

15.
The
second
proviso
to
subsection (4) of Section 20 of the Act,
2016 provides that if it is not possible to
adjust the employee against any post he can
be kept on a supernumerary post until a
suitable post is available or he attains the
age of superannuation whichever is earlier.

16. Thus from perusal of the
provisions of the Act, 2016 it is apparent
that where an employee acquires a
disability during his service, his services
are not to be dispensed with rather efforts
are to be made by the employer for shifting
him to a suitable post and in the absence
thereto, to continue him on supernumerary
post until a suitable post is available.

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering the provisions of the Act, 1995
in the case of Ch. Joseph (supra) has held
as under:

 33. This principle was further
extended in Mohamed Ibrahim v. The
Chairman and Managing Director & Ors,
wherein one of us (Aravind Kumar, J.) was
party to the judgment. The Court held that
even if colour blindness does not fall within
the statutory definition of "disability" under
Section 2(i) or "persons with disability"
under Section 2(t) of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016, the employer is
still
bound
to
provide
reasonable
accommodation
and
cannot
terminate
employment without exploring alternate
roles. This Court observed: "19. The Act
contains a general non-discriminatory
provision:

 "3.
Equality
and
nondiscrimination.

 (1) The appropriate Government
shall
ensure
that
the
persons
with
disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life
with dignity and respect for his or her
integrity equally with others.

 (2) The appropriate Government
shall take steps to utilise the capacity of
persons with disabilities by providing
appropriate environment.

 3) No person with disability shall
be
discriminated
on
the
ground
of
disability, unless it is shown that the
impugned
act
or
omission
is
a
proportionate
means
of
achieving
a
legitimate aim.

 (4) No person shall be deprived
of his or her personal liberty only on the
ground of disability. (5) The appropriate
Government shall take necessary steps to
ensure reasonable accommodation for
persons with disabilities."

 20. The twin conditions of falling
within defined categories, and also a
threshold
condition
of
a
minimum
percentage, of such disabilities, in fact are
a
barrier.
The
facts
of
this
case
demonstrate that the appellant is fit, in all
senses of the term, to discharge the duties
attached to the post he applied and was
selected for. Yet, he is denied the position,
for being "disabled" as he is colour blind.
At the same time, he does not fit the
category of PWD under the lexicon of the
universe contained within the Act. These
challenges traditional understandings of
9 All. Laljee Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1023
what constitute "disabilities". The court has
to, therefore, travel beyond the provisions
of the Act and discern a principle which
can be rationally applied.

 21. In Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of
India, [2016] 4 SCR 638. this court
observed: "40. In international human
rights law, equality is founded upon two
complementary
principles:
nondiscrimination
and
reasonable
differentiation. The principle of nondiscrimination seeks to ensure that all
persons can equally enjoy and exercise all
their rights and freedoms. Discrimination
occurs
due
to
arbitrary
denial
of
opportunities for equal participation. For
example,
when
public
facilities
and
services are set on standards out of the
reach of persons with disabilities, it leads
to exclusion and denial of rights. Equality
not only implies preventing discrimination
(example, the protection of individuals
against
unfavourable
treatment
by
introducing antidiscrimination laws), but
goes beyond in remedying discrimination
against
groups
suffering
systematic
discrimination in society. In concrete
terms, it means embracing the notion of
positive rights, affirmative action and
reasonable accommodation."

 22. Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v.
Union of India, 2021 (13) SCR 823
highlighted on the right to equality and
underlined the two aspects:formal equality
and substantive equality. It stated that
substantive equality aims at producing
equality of outcomes, and in the context of
the case, observed that the "principle of
reasonable accommodation is one of the
means for achieving substantive equality,
pursuant to which disabled individuals
must be reasonably accommodated based
on their individual capacities." The court
recollected Vikas Kumar v. Union Public
Service Commission, 2021 (12) SCR 311,
which held as follows: "The principle of
reasonable accommodation acknowledges
that if disability" should be remedied and
opportunities are "to be affirmatively
created for facilitating the development of
the disabled. Reasonable accommodation is
founded in the norm of inclusion. Exclusion
results in the negation of individual dignity
and worth or they can choose the route of
reasonable accommodation, where each
individual's
dignity
and
worth
is
respected."

 23. It was also noted that
provisions of Chapters VII and VIII of the
Act are in furtherance of the principle of
reasonable accommodation which is a
component of the guarantee of equality.
This has been recognised by a line of
precedent. This court, in multiple cases has
held that the principle of reasonable
differentiation, recognising the different
needs of persons with disabilities is a facet
of the principle of equality.

 24. The significant impact of
Vikash Kumar (supra) is that the case dealt
with a person with a chronic neurological
condition resulting in Writer's Cramp,
experiencing extreme difficulty in writing.
He was denied a scribe for the civil
services exam by the UPSC, because he did
not come within the definition of person
with benchmark disability (40% or more of
a specified disability). This court, rejected
this stand, and held him to be a person with
disability. It was also stated that the
provision of scribe to him fell within the
scope of reasonable accommodation. The
Court said:

 " the accommodation which the
law mandates is 'reasonable' because it has
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to be tailored to the requirements of each
condition of disability. The expectations
which every disabled person has are
unique to the nature of the disability and
the character of the impediments which are
encountered as its consequence?"

 25. The appellant is, for all
purposes, treated as a person with
disability, but does not fall within the
categories defined in the Act, nor does he
possess the requisite benchmark eligibility
condition. The objective material on the
record shows that the colour vision
impairment is mild. Yet, TANGEDCO's
concerns cannot be characterised as
unreasonable. However, TANGEDCO is
under an obligation to work under the
framework
of
"reasonable
accommodation", which is defined by
Section 2(y) as follows:

 (y) "reasonable accommodation"
means
necessary
and
appropriate
modification and adjustments, without
imposing a disproportionate or undue
burden in a particular case, to ensure to
persons with disabilities the enjoyment
or exercise of rights equally with
others;.."

 26. Reasonable accommodation
thus, is "appropriate modification and
adjustments" that should be taken by the
employer, in the present case, without that
duty being imposed with "disproportionate
or undue burden".

 34. Similarly, in Ravinder Kumar
Dhariwal v. Union of India and others, the
Court
reaffirmed
that
reasonable
accommodation is a means to achieve
substantive equality, and obligates the
employer to assess each case individually,
based on the employee's residual functional
ability and not just on formal disability
classifications.

 35. When a disability is acquired
in the course of service, the legal
framework
must
respond
not
with
exclusion but with adjustment. The duty of
a public employer is not merely to
discharge functionaries, but to preserve
human potential where it continues to
exist. The law does not permit the
severance of service by the stroke of a
medical
certificate
without
first
exhausting the possibility of meaningful
redeployment. Such obligation is not
rooted
in
compassion,
but
in
constitutional discipline and statutory
expectation."

 [emphasis by Court]

18. Although no medical board had
been formed, from perusal of the report of
the committee dated 9.10.2024, it emerges
that the said committee had been formed in
pursuance of letter dated 4.10.2024 as sent
by the District Inspector of Schools to the
Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki, a copy
of which is annexure 7 to the short counter
affidavit, for sending a senior physician for
evaluation
of
the
petitioner.
The
committee's report dated 9.10.2024 would
indicate that the senior physician appointed
by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki
was also the part of the committee. The
decision of the committee also indicates
that opinion has been given by the senior
physician and the other members of the
committee whereby as per the medical
certificate produced by the petitioner he has
not been found fit for doing teaching work.
Thus
it
is
apparent
that
even
the
respondents on the basis of the said report
of the committee are of the view that
teaching work cannot be assigned to the
9 All. Rakesh Kumar Nayak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1025
petitioner yet at the same time
considering the provisions of 20(4) of the
Act 2016, alternative post has to be
identified for the petitioner. This is also as
per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ch. Joseph (supra).

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, writ petition is disposed of with
direction to the District Inspector of Schools
Barabanki i.e. the respondent no. 5 to act in
consonance with the provisions of the Act,
2016 and the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Joseph
(supra) by identifying a suitable post for the
petitioner with the same pay scale and service
benefits. If it is not possible to adjust him on
any post he be kept on a supernumerary post
till a suitable post is available or he attains the
age of superannuation whichever is earlier.

20. Let action in this regard be
taken by the respondent no. 5 within a
period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.

21. The other benefits as flow out
from the order being passed by the District
Inspector of Schools in pursuance of this
judgement would be accorded to the
petitioner within next six weeks of the
order passed by the District Inspector of
Schools.

22. The period from the date of
absence of the petitioner till an order is
passed in pursuance of this judgement of
alternative
appointment,
shall
be
regularized by the respondents as per rules.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1025
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.09.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ - A No. 9033 of 2024
Connected with
Writ - A No. 6566 of 2023

Rakesh Kumar Nayak ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rishi Raj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Raj Kr. Upadhyaya

Issues for consideration
How far the departmental proceedings are
justified if the incident pertains to the year 2015
and a charge-sheet has been issued to
petitioner for the first time after almost nine
years in 2024, when it would be virtually
impossible for him to defend himself by
production of any documentary evidence due to
passing of nine years?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
U.P.
Government
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999: Rule 3 - In case delay in initiation of
departmental proceedings is unexplained,
prejudice to the delinquent employee is
writ large on the face of record. It is evident
that in case of such delay in initiation of
departmental proceedings, as in the present
case, where nine years have elapsed from the
date of incident to issuance of charge-sheet, it
would be virtually impossible for petitioner to
garner documents and evidence in his support.
(Para 20)

With
regard
to
delay
in
initiation
of
departmental proceedings against petitioner, it
is evident that allegations as indicated in the
charge-sheet pertain to the year 2015. It is
admitted in the counter affidavit that for the
first time a show cause notice was issued to
petitioner after almost six years on 16.11.2021
for awarding of censure entry under Rule-3 of
the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999, and for withholding of
integrity. There is no explanation as to why