# Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra v. Secy. / Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 668
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8383 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maya-shukla-maya-mishra-v-secy-examination-controller-lower-subordinate-service-53746
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Gaurav Mehrotra, C.S.C., Utsav Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Prevailing authority on the occurrence of
contradiction in the Hindi version and English
version of any provision?
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Recruitment - Post of
Cutting Swing - Candidature - Marks in
High
School
and
I.T.I.
Certificate
examination are to be considered - Clear
dichotomy occurred in English and Hindi
version of Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) - While
English version provided that 'Twenty
percent of the percentage of marks
secured in the Certificate Test shall be
given to each candidate, its Hindi version
provide that Twenty percent of marks
secured in the Certificate Test shall be
given to each candidate - Which would
prevail :
Held : Clause 3 of Article 348 of the
Constitution of India therefore clearly prescribes
an aspect that in case of any dichotomy
between the vernacular language and English
language, it is the English language which will
be considered to be authoritative - It would be
the English version of any Hindi translation of a
bill or order or service regulations which would
prevail. In such circumstances, twenty percent
of the percentage of marks secured in the
National
Trade
Certificate
Test/National
Apprenticeship Certificate Test would prevail.
[Paras 11 and 16] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2002, Commissioner of
Trade Taxes v. Associated Distributors Limited;
Ram Surat Mishra v. State of UP and others,
Writ petition No. 8 (S/B) of 2010; Prabhat
Kumar
Sharma
v.
Union
Public
Service
Commission and others, (2006) 10 SCC 587;
Smt. Ram Rati and others v. Gram Samaj
Jehwa, through its Up-Pradhan, AIR 1974
Allahabad 106 (FB) - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 348; U.P.
Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak)
Sewa Niyamavali 2014 - Rule 16 (3)(Ka);
Official Language Act, 1951.

List of Keywords
Post of Cutting Swing; Candidature; Marks in
I.T.I. Certificate Examination; Percentage of
marks;

English
version;
Hindi
version;
Contradiction; Clear dichotomy; Proceeding of
Supreme Court; Proceeding of High Court; Nonobstante clause; President; Hindi language;
8 All. Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra Vs. Secy./Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service
 Selective Commission Lko & Ors.
669
English language; Vernacular language; Official
Language.

Case Arising From
Seeking direction for including the name in
the list for the post, in question on the basis
of marks as per the Hindi version of relevant
Rules.

## Text

668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
all the vacancies which it is having and as
such there cannot be any occasion for this
Court to issue a mandamus to the
respondents for filling in the remaining
vacancies.

22. At this stage, learned counsel for
the respondents has also produced the
marks as have been obtained by the
petitioner which are found to be 23.25 and
as the cut off which has been specified for
the OBC category is 23.75 as such it is
apparent that the petitioner has failed to
obtain even the cut off marks for being
selected against the advertised posts.

23. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 668
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 8383 of 2025

Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
Secy. / Examination Controller Lower
Subordinate Service Selection Commission
Lko & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Ankit Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gaurav Mehrotra, C.S.C., Utsav Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Prevailing authority on the occurrence of
contradiction in the Hindi version and English
version of any provision?
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Recruitment - Post of
Cutting Swing - Candidature - Marks in
High
School
and
I.T.I.
Certificate
examination are to be considered - Clear
dichotomy occurred in English and Hindi
version of Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) - While
English version provided that 'Twenty
percent of the percentage of marks
secured in the Certificate Test shall be
given to each candidate, its Hindi version
provide that Twenty percent of marks
secured in the Certificate Test shall be
given to each candidate - Which would
prevail :
Held : Clause 3 of Article 348 of the
Constitution of India therefore clearly prescribes
an aspect that in case of any dichotomy
between the vernacular language and English
language, it is the English language which will
be considered to be authoritative - It would be
the English version of any Hindi translation of a
bill or order or service regulations which would
prevail. In such circumstances, twenty percent
of the percentage of marks secured in the
National
Trade
Certificate
Test/National
Apprenticeship Certificate Test would prevail.
[Paras 11 and 16] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2002, Commissioner of
Trade Taxes v. Associated Distributors Limited;
Ram Surat Mishra v. State of UP and others,
Writ petition No. 8 (S/B) of 2010; Prabhat
Kumar
Sharma
v.
Union
Public
Service
Commission and others, (2006) 10 SCC 587;
Smt. Ram Rati and others v. Gram Samaj
Jehwa, through its Up-Pradhan, AIR 1974
Allahabad 106 (FB) - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 348; U.P.
Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak)
Sewa Niyamavali 2014 - Rule 16 (3)(Ka);
Official Language Act, 1951.

List of Keywords
Post of Cutting Swing; Candidature; Marks in
I.T.I. Certificate Examination; Percentage of
marks;

English
version;
Hindi
version;
Contradiction; Clear dichotomy; Proceeding of
Supreme Court; Proceeding of High Court; Nonobstante clause; President; Hindi language;
8 All. Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra Vs. Secy./Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service
 Selective Commission Lko & Ors.
669
English language; Vernacular language; Official
Language.

Case Arising From
Seeking direction for including the name in
the list for the post, in question on the basis
of marks as per the Hindi version of relevant
Rules.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar, whose
power filed today is taken on record, and
Mr. Jitendra Kumar learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Utsav Mishra, learned
counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2, and
learned State Counsel for opposite party
No. 3.

2. Petition has been filed seeking a
direction to the concerned authority to
permit petitioner to participate and include
her name in the impugned list for the post
of "cutting swing" scheduled on July 29th,
July 2025.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that in view of the U.P.
Audhyogik
Shikshan
Sansthan
(Anudeshak) Sewa Niyamavali 2014 the
petitioner
would
be
entitled
for
consideration in terms of paragraph 16(3)
(ka) thereof since marks in the high
school and I.T. I. certificate examinations
are
required
to
be
taken
into
consideration in the following manner:-

" कटप्पणीः कनयुकक्त प्राकिकारी अन्य सदस्यों से वररष्ठ
ककसी अकिकारी को अपनी ओर से चयन सकमकत के अध्यक्ष के रूप
में नामं कनकदजष्ट कर सकता है और वह केवि साक्षात्कार िेने के किए
एक से अकिक चयन सकमकत गकठत कर सकता है।

(2) चयन हेतु कवचाराथज आवेदन, कनयम-15 के
अिीन जारी ककये गये कवज्ञापन में प्रकाकशत प्रपत्र में कनयुकक्त
प्राकिकारी द्वारा आमंकत्रत ककये जाएंगे।

(3) सीिी भती के किए चयन करते समय पात्र
अभ्यकथजयों की श्रेष्ठता सूची कनम्नकिकखत रीकत में तैयार की जाएगी

(क) पद के किए कवकहत शैकक्षक अहतांकों हेतु
प्रत्येक अभ्यथी को कनम्नकिकखत रीकत में अंक प्रदान ककये जायेंगे

(एक) हाई स्कूि परीक्षा में प्राप्त अंकों के प्रकतशत
का 50 प्रकतशत प्रत्येक अभ्यथी को कदया जायेगा।

(द) राष्ट्रीय व्यवसाय प्रमाण पत्र/राष्ट्रीय कशक्षुता
प्रमाण पत्र परीक्षा में प्राप्त अंको का बीस प्रकतशत प्रत्येक अभ्यथी को
कदया जायेगा

या

कडप्िोमा या उपाकि परीक्षा में प्राप्त अंकों के प्रकतशत
का 20 प्रकतशत प्रत्येक अभ्यथी को कदया जायेगा।

(तीन) शी0आई0टी0एस0 /पी0ओ0टी0 परीक्षा
में प्राप्त अंकों के प्रकतशत का 15 प्रकतशत प्रत्येक अभ्यथी को कदया
जायेगा।

(ख) (एक) खण्ड (क) के अिीन मूलयांकनों के
पररणाम प्राप्त हो जाने और साररणीबद्ध कर किये जाने के पिात्
चयन सकमकत साक्षात्कार आयोकजत करेगी। यकद प्राप्त आवेदन,
संख्या में बहुत अकिक हो तो ऐसी कस्थकत में साक्षातकार हेतु बुिाये
जाने वािे अभ्यकथजयों की संख्या, ररकक्तयों की संख्या की चार गुनी
होगी। इस प्रयोजनाथज अभ्यकथजयों की श्रेष्ठता सूची उनके द्वारा खंड
(क) के अिीन प्राप्त अंकों के कुि योग के आिार पर पृथक रूप से
तैयर की जाएगी।

(दो) साक्षाकार एक सौ अंकों का होगा। साक्षात्कार
में प्राप्त अंकों का 15 प्रकतशत प्रत्येक अभ्यथी को कदया जायेगा।"

4. Learned counsel appearing for
opposite parties 1 and 2 has refuted
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner with submission that the
petitioner's candidature has not been
considered since there was no such
provision in the advertisement issued in
November 2015 for the said post, which is
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in accordance with the English version of
the rules known as UP Industrial Training
Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014,
which is in the following manner:-

" 16. (1) Direct recruitment shall
be made by a Selection Committee
comprising:

(1) xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

(2) xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

(3) In making selection for direct
recruitment, the merit list of the eligible
candidates shall be prepared in the
following manner:-

(a) For academic qualifications
prescribed for the post, the marks shall be
awarded to each candidate in the following
manner:

(i) Fifty percent of the percentage
of marks secured in the High School
Examination shall be given to each
candidate."

(ii)
Twenty
percent
of
the
percentage of marks secured in the
National Trade Certificate Test/ National
Apprenticeship Certificate Test shall be
given to each candidate,

Or

Twenty percent of the percentage
of marks secured in Diploma or Degree
Examination shall be given to cach
candidate.

(iii)
Fifteen
percent
of
the
percentage of the marks secured in
CUS/POT test shall be given to each
candidate.

(b) (1) After the results of the
evaluations under clause (a) have been
received and tabulated, the Selection
Committee shall hold an interview. If the
applications received are large in numbers,
then in such situation the number of
candidates to be called for interview shall
be four times the number of vacancies. For
this purpose the merit list of candidates
shall be prepared separately on the basis of
aggregate of marks obtained by them under
clause (a).

(ii) The interview shall carry one
hundred marks. Fifteen percent of the
marks obtained at the interview shall be
given to each candidate."

5. It is also submitted that in case of
any contradiction in the Hindi and English
versions, it is the English version which
would prevail in terms of Article 348(3) of
the Constitution of India.

6.
Upon
consideration
of
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perusal of the material
on record, particularly the Hindi version of
rule 16(3) and the English version thereof,
a clear dichotomy is evident between Rule
16(3)(ka)(Da) of the Hindi version and
Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) of the English version in
the following manner:-

Rule 16(3)(ka)(Da) of the Hindi
version

"(द) राष्ट्रीय व्यवसाय प्रमाण पत्र/राष्ट्रीय कशक्षुता प्रमाण पत्र
परीक्षा में प्राप्त अंकों का बीस प्रकतशत प्रत्येक अभ्यथी को कदया
जायेगा।"
8 All. Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra Vs. Secy./Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service
 Selective Commission Lko & Ors.
671

Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) of the English
version

" (ii) Twenty percent of the
percentage of marks secured in the
National Trade Certificate Test/ National
Apprenticeship Certificate Test shall be
given to each candidate "

7. In such circumstances, the question
arising for consideration is whether the
Hindi or English version of the rules would
prevail.

8. The aforesaid aspect is delineated
delineated
in
Article
348(3) of
the
Constitution of India in the following
manner:-

"Notwithstanding
anything
in
sub-clause (b) of clause (1), where the
Legislature of a State has prescribed any
language other than the English language
for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts
passed by, the Legislature of the State or in
Ordinances promulgated by the Governor
of the State or in any order, rule,
regulation or bye-law referred to in
paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a
translation of the same in the English
language published under the authority of
the Governor of the State in the Official
Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be
the authoritative text thereof in the English
language under this article."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on a judgment rendered
by Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Trade Taxes versus
Associated Distributors Limited, Civil
Appeal No. 6636 of 2002, as well as a full
bench decision of this court in the case of
Ram Surat Mishra versus State of UP and
others, writ petition No. 8 (S/B) of 2010,
while learned counsel for the answering
opposite party has placed reliance on a
judgment rendered by Supreme Court in
the case of Prabhat Kumar Sharma versus
Union Public Service Commission and
others, (2006) 10 SCC 587, as well as a full
bench decision of this court in the case of
Smt. Ram Rati and others versus Gram
Samaj Jehwa, through its Up-Pradhan, AIR
1974 Allahabad 106 (FB).

10. Upon consideration of provision of
Article 348 of the Constitution of India, it
is evident that the aforesaid provision
commences with a non-obstante clause and
indicates that all proceedings in the
Supreme Court and High Courts and
authoritative texts shall the in English
language. Clause 2 of the Article, again
commencing with a non-obstante clause,
indicates that with the previous cosnent of
the President, use of Hindi language, or any
other language used for any official of the
State may be authorized. However clause 3
of the aforesaid Article provides that the
authoritative text in English language under
this Article would prevail.

11. In the considered opinion of this
court, Clause 3 of Article 348 of the
Constitution of India therefore clearly
prescribes an aspect that in case of any
dichotomy
between
the
vernacular
language and English language, it is the
English language which will be considered
to be authoritative.

12. The said proposition has been
considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Prabhat Kumar Sharma (supra)
in the following manner:-

" 19. The Court after taking
notice
of
Article
348(1)(b)
of
the
Constitution of India which provides that
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the authoritative text of all Bills to be
introduced or amendments thereof to be
moved in either House of Parliament shall
be in English language came to the
conclusion that the Hindi version was a
translated version and the original version
was the authoritative text and in the Hindi
version
there
was
some
defect
in
translation
because
of
which
Lohar
community
had
been
claiming
the
advantage of being a Scheduled Tribe when
actually they were only a Backward Class
and thus could not be given the benefit of
reservation as a Scheduled Tribe. It was
observed in Nityanand case [(1996) 3 SCC
576] : (SCC p. 584, para 19)

"19. Article 348(1)(b) of the
Constitution provides that notwithstanding
anything in Part II (in Chapter II Articles
346 and 347 relate to regional languages)
the authoritative text of all Bills to be
introduced and amendments thereto to be
moved in either House of Parliament ? of
all
ordinances
promulgated
by
the
President
?
and
all
orders,
rules,
regulations and bye-laws issued under the
Constitution or under any law made by
Parliament, shall be in the English
language. By operation of sub-article (3)
thereof with a non obstante clause, where
the legislature of a State has prescribed
any language other than the English
language for use in Bills introduced in, or
Acts passed by, the legislature of the State
or in ordinances promulgated by the
Governor of the State or in any order, rule,
regulation or bye-law referred to in para
(iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the
same in the English language published
under the authority of the Governor of the
State in the Official Gazette of that State
shall be deemed to be the authoritative text
thereof in the English language under this
article. Therefore, the Act and the Schedule
thereto are part of the Act, as enacted by
Parliament in English language. It is the
authoritative text. When the Schedules were
translated
into
Hindi,
the
translator
wrongly translated Lohara as Lohar
omitting the letter 'a' while Lohra is written
as mentioned in English version. It is also
clear when we compare Part XVI of the
Second Schedule relating to the State of
West Bengal, the word Lohar both in
English as well as in the Hindi version was
not mentioned. Court would take judicial
notice of Acts of Parliament and would
interpret the Schedule in the light of the
English version being an authoritative text
of the Act and the Second Schedule."

20.
We
are
respectfully
in
agreement
with
the
view
taken
in
Nityanand case [(1996) 3 SCC 576] .

21.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing for the appellant contends that
after the coming into force of the Official
Languages Act, 1963 the Hindi version was
the authoritative text and in the case of
ambiguity between Hindi and English
versions, the Hindi version would prevail.
Article 348 of the Constitution clearly
provides English to be the authoritative text
in
respect
of
Acts
of
Parliament,
amendments to Acts subject to any law
made
by
Parliament.
The
Official
Languages Act, 1963 vide Section 3 thereof
provides
for
continuance
of
English
language for official purposes of the Union
and for use in Parliament. Section 5
provides for a Hindi translation of all
Central Acts and Ordinances promulgated
by the President or if any order or rule or
regulation or bye-laws issued under the
Constitution or under any Central Act.
Section 6 deals with the State Act with
which we are not concerned in the instant
case. From a conjoint reading of Article
8 All. Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra Vs. Secy./Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service
 Selective Commission Lko & Ors.
673
348 of the Constitution and Sections 3 and
5 of the Official Languages Act, 1963,
English
continues
to
remain
the
authoritative text in respect of the Acts of
Parliament."

13. The aforesaid aspect has also been
considered by Full Bench of 5 judges of
this court in the case of Ram Rati (supra),
which has also held as follows:-

"14. Under this Article two things
have
been
provided;
Firstly,
all
proceedings in the Supreme Court and in
every High Court have to be in the English,
language except when under clause (2) the
Governor of a State with the previous
consent of the President, authorises the use
of the Hindi language or any other local
language in proceedings in the High Court
of that State. We are not concerned with
that question in this case. Secondly, the
authoritative text of all Bills and Acts of the
Parliament and of the State Legislatures
has to be in the English language.
However,
the
State
Legislatures
are
authorised to prescribe any language other
than the English language for this purpose,
but, in such an event, clause (3) provides
that a translation in the English language
of any Bill introduced in or Act passed by a
State Legislature in a language other than
the English language has to be published
under the authority of the Governor of the
State in the official Gazette of that State
and such translation shall be deemed to be
the authoritative text of such a Bill and Act.
Whenever a question arises as to what is
the authoritative Text of a particular Act or
an Ordinance etc. of a State Legislature,
one has to turn to its Engl in translation, if
it was enacted in a language other than the
English language. The authoritative text of
any Bill, Act or Ordinance of a State
Legislature cannot be in a language other
than the English language unless the
Parliament by law otherwise provides.
Thus, the power to declare that the
authoritative text of any Ordinance, Act
etc. of a State Legislature shall be in a
language other than the English language
has
been
vested
exclusively
in
the
Parliament. The Parliament has not made
any such provision so far. The official
language of the State of Uttar Pradesh is
Hindi, so that the Legislature of this State
can pass Ordinance, Acts, etc. in the Hindi
language. Thus even though the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act was passed
by the State Legislature in Hindi, yet its
translation in the English language shall be
regarded its authoritative text and shall
prevail over its Hindi version.

15. The learned counsel for the
respondents referred to Arts. 345, 346 and
347 of the Constitution Art. 345 makes a
provision for official language of a State
and provides that the State Legislature may
by law adopt any one or more of the
languages in use in the State or the Hindi
as the language or languages to be used for
all or any of the official purposes Art. 346
makes a provision about the official
language for communication between one
State and another or between a State and
the Union. In Art. 347 a provision has been
made that on a demand being made the
President may direct that a language other
than the English language shall be
officially recognised in a State or any part
thereof for such purposes as may be
specified. These Articles have no hearing
upon the question before us. We are not
concerned with the official language of a
State but are concerned with the question
of the language in which the Bills and Acts
have to be passed by a State Legislature
and that subject has been specifically dealt
with in Art. 348, which provides that
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notwithstanding anything in the foregoing
provisions of this Part of the Constitution,
all Acts, etc. shall be in the English
language. It is thus clear that the
provisions contained in Art. 345, 346 and
347 are subject to the provisions contained
in Art. 348.

16. The other argument is that in
clause (3) of Art. 348 the use of the words
"notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b)
of clause (1)" suggests that this clause will
over ride clause (1). This interpretation is
not correct. It only means that a State
Legislature may prescribe any language
other than the English language for use in
Bills introduced in or Acts passed by the
State Legislature and that clause (1)(b)
shall not create an impediment in its way.
As we have already indicated above, when
a Bill is introduced or an Act is passed in a
language other than the English language
by a State Legislature, an authoritative
translation thereof in the English language
has to be provided and that translation
shall for the purposes of clause (1)(b) be
deemed to be the authoritative text thereof.
Indeed, it will be beyond the competence of
a State Legislature to provide that the
authoritative
text
of
its
Acts
and
Ordinances etc. shall be in a language
other than the English language, because
such
a
power
vests
only
in
the
Parliament. Thus, when there is a conflict
between the English version of a statute
of a State Legislature and its Version in a
local language, the version in English
language will prevail over the version in
the local language. A Division Bench of
this Court in Sagir Ahmad v. The
Government of the State of U.P. [A.I.R.
1954 Alld. 257.] while referring to Art.
348 of the Constitution has at page 278 in
paragraph 83 observed:?

"In view of this provision of the
Constitution the notification appearing in.
English must prevail over the notification
appearing in Hindi".

14. It is relevant that the aforesaid
judgments have also considered the aspect
of Official Languages Act.

15. Learned counsel for petitioner has
pleaded reliance on judgments indicated
herein above but a perusal of same would
make it evident that while in the case of
Associated Distributors Limited (supra), no
reference pertaining to Article 348 of the
Constitution of India has been made, in the
case of Full Bench of this court in the case
of Ram Surat Mishra (supra), only Clauses
(1) and (2) of Article 348 have been
adverted to while considering the UP
Official Language Act, 1951, but again
there was reference neither to Clause 3 of
Article 348 nor of the earlier Full Bench
decision of this court in the case of Smt.
Ramrati (supra).

16. In view of aforesaid facts &
circumstances, it is quite evident that not
only in terms of Article 348(3) of
Constitution of India, but also in terms of
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Full Bench decision of this court, it would
be the English version of any Hindi
translation of a bill or order or service
regulations which would prevail. In such
circumstances, twenty percent of the
percentage of marks secured in the
National Trade Certificate Test/National
Apprenticeship Certificate Test would
prevail.

17. In view of aforesaid, since
petitioner is seeking benefit of Hindi
version, the petition fails and is dismissed
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