# Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 422
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4265 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53387
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Departmental
Inquiry
-
Initiation
-
Regulation
351-A
of
Civil
Service
Regulations - Limitation Period - Delay in
Issuance
of
Charge-Sheet
-
Held:
A
departmental inquiry against a retired employee
is initiated only upon issuance of the chargesheet, not the order authorizing the inquiry.
Proceedings under Regulation 351-A of CSR are
valid only for misconduct within four years of
retirement or inquiry initiation. Inordinate,
unexplained delay in issuing the charge-sheet
vitiates the inquiry. The inquiry order dated
19.01.2016 and charge-sheet dated 16.07.2024,
issued over nine years post-retirement for an
incident in 2010-11, were quashed as illegal and
arbitrary. The petitioner was entitled to all
retiral benefits with 7% interest, with penal
interest of 10% for non-compliance within two
months.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
copies of the same shall be served by the
employer on the workmen concerned and
"proof to that effect shall also be submitted
by
the
employer
along
with
the
application." But the application (Annexure
A) has not mentioned anything about
"proof
of
service
to
the
workmen
concerned. The statement in the counteraffidavit that proof of service had been
submitted to the Specified Authority has not
satisfied our mind in this regard."

23. So far the question of laches in
filing the writ petition is concerned, it is the
admitted position that writ petition was
filed on 25.07.2001, whereas the impugned
termination
order
was
passed
on
26/28.02.1991, thus the writ petition is
highly belated and suffers from laches. No
plausible explanation has come forward
from the petitioner for such a long and
inordinate delay in filing the writ petition.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Scooters India and others (supra) has
considered the issue of laches in filing the
writ petition and directly entertaining the
writ petition for adjudication of industrial
dispute involving the termination of service
passed on disputed question of facts. The
question of delay has been considered in
the aforesaid case and six years delay in
filing the writ petition has ben deprecated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Paragraph2 of the aforesaid judgement is extracted
herein below:-

"2. The above facts alone are
sufficient to indicate that there was no
occasion for the High Court to entertain the
writ petition directly for adjudication of an
industrial dispute involving the termination of
disputed questions of fact for which remedy
under the industrial laws was available to the
workman. That apart, the writ petition was
filed more than 6 years after the date on
which the cause of action is said to have
arisen and there being no cogent explanation
for the delay, the writ petition should have
been dismissed on the ground of laches
alone. It is also extraordinary for the High
Court to have held Clause 9.3.12 of the
standing orders as invalid. Learned counsel
for the respondent rightly made no attempt to
support this part of the High Court's order. In
view of the fact that we are setting aside the
High Court's judgment, we need not deal with
this aspect in detail."

24. After recording the findings on
the basis of facts and law, this Court does not
find any good ground on merit to interfere in
the impugned order as the same has been
passed after following the due procedure as
envisaged in the Standing Orders. The
petitioner was sleeping over the matter for
over ten years, therefore, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed on the ground of
laches also.

25. Writ petition is accordingly
Dismissed.

26. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 422
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 4265 of 2024
Connected with
Writ A No. 6945 of 2024

Narendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
5 All. Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423
Mridula Saxena, Manish Misra, Sarvesh
Kumar Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Departmental
Inquiry
-
Initiation
-
Regulation
351-A
of
Civil
Service
Regulations - Limitation Period - Delay in
Issuance
of
Charge-Sheet
-
Held:
A
departmental inquiry against a retired employee
is initiated only upon issuance of the chargesheet, not the order authorizing the inquiry.
Proceedings under Regulation 351-A of CSR are
valid only for misconduct within four years of
retirement or inquiry initiation. Inordinate,
unexplained delay in issuing the charge-sheet
vitiates the inquiry. The inquiry order dated
19.01.2016 and charge-sheet dated 16.07.2024,
issued over nine years post-retirement for an
incident in 2010-11, were quashed as illegal and
arbitrary. The petitioner was entitled to all
retiral benefits with 7% interest, with penal
interest of 10% for non-compliance within two
months.

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109]

2. UCO Bank Vs Rajinder Lal Capoor [(2007) 6
SCC 694], Coal India Limited Vs Saroj Mishra
[(2007) 9 SCC 625], UCO Bank Vs M.B. Motwani
[2023 AIR (SC) 5628], State Bank of India vs.
Navin Kumar Sinha [2024 LawSuit (SC) 1018]

3. St. of M.P. Vs Bani Singh [1990 AIR (SC)
1308]

4. Umesh Kumar Sinha Vs St. of U.P. [2021 (6)
AllLJ 778], Amresh Shrivastava Vs St. of M.P.
[2025 4 JT 174]

5. U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Vs Anil Kumar Sharma
[Special Appeal Defective No. 646 of 2021

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

1. Heard Sri Manish Misra and Sri
Sarvesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsels
for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Patel,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State-opposite parties.

2. Both the aforesaid writ petitions
have been filed by one and the same
petitioner, therefore, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, both the
writ petitions have been connected and are
being decided by a common judgment.

3. On the basis of arguments so
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties in both the writ petitions and
pleadings
so
exchanged
therein,
the
question involved in the writ petitions is
that as to whether departmental inquiry
would be treated to have been initiated with
effect from the date when the order for
initiation of departmental inquiry is issued
or from the date when the charge-sheet is
issued to the charged employee seeking
defence reply.

4. In the first writ petition i.e. WritA
No.4265 of
2024,
the
petitioner
challenged the order dated 19.01.2016
passed by the Director, Local Bodies
Directorate,
Lucknow
initiating
the
departmental inquiry against the petitioner
after about ten months from his retirement
on the minor allegations for some work,
which was allegedly done by him, in the
year 2010-11; though no charge sheet was
issued immediately after the impugned
order dated 19.01.2016. The impugned
order
dated
19.01.2016
was
issued
invoking Regulation 351-A of Civil Service
Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the
CSR"). The provision of Regulation 351-A
of the CSR would not be applicable in the
present case inasmuch as such departmental
inquiry could have been initiated against a
retired employee, if the alleged misconduct
has
been
committed
by
the
retired
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employee within four years from his
retirement or from the order initiating
departmental inquiry but in the present
case, the allegations are related to the year
2010-11, the petitioner retired from service
on 31.03.2015 and order for initiating
departmental inquiry issued on 19.01.2016.

5. In the first writ petition, the
specific query was raised by this Court vide
order dated 02.08.2024 as to whether any
charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, if
so, any short counter affidavit may be filed
brining on record the copy of charge sheet
and outcome of the departmental inquiry, if
any; then, copy of one charge sheet dated
16.07.2024 was given to the petitioner for
conducting
the
departmental
inquiry
relating to the alleged incident of the year
2010-11. Challenging the charge sheet
dated 16.07.2024, the petitioner filed
second writ petition i.e. Writ- A No.6945
of 2024.

6. The brief information relating to
the petitioner is that the petitioner was
initially appointed as Junior Engineer
(Civil) on 07.01.1987 and further given the
status
of
Ad-hoc
employee
w.e.f.
07.03.1995 under Rule 31 of the U.P.
Palika (Centralised Service) Rules, 1966.
Since no regularization and no retiral
benefits have been paid to the petitioner, so
he
agitated
his
grievances
through
representation to the department and in
reply, the department has justified its action
on the ground that the departmental
proceeding
is
pending
against
the
petitioner.

7. Sri Misra has submitted that this is
an admitted position as per affidavits filed by
the respective parties of the writ petitions that
the petitioner retired from service on
31.03.2015 from the service of Nagar
Panchayat and his services are covered by
U.P. Palika (Centralised Service) Rules,
1966. It is also an admitted fact that chargesheet was issued to the petitioner after 9 years
and 5 months of his retirement i.e.
16.07.2024.

8. Sri Misra has further submitted
that the work done in the Nagar Panchayat,
Shohratgarh, Siddharthnagar for which the
alleged charge-sheet has been belatedly
issued against the retired person (petitioner)
was of the year 2010-11 and the charge-sheet,
which has been issued against the petitioner,
was also issued against the Chairman of said
Nagar Panchayat having somewhat identical
charges in the year 2015 itself. Further, prior
to retirement of the petitioner an explanation
was called from him on 23.03.2015 and 15
days' time was given to submit reply, but
before submission of reply, the petitioner
retired from service on 31.03.2015. Further,
the petitioner was neither suspended nor any
charge-sheet was issued while he was in
service.

9. Sri Misra has submitted that the
opposite parties took permission under
Regulation 351-A of the CSR for initiating
the proceedings against the petitioner on
19.01.2016, but thereafter eight years have
passed, no proceeding has been initiated
against the petitioner. Ultimately, when the
petitioner filed petition before this Court, the
charge-sheet has been issued with an
inordinate unexplained delay of about nine
years and five months and as per settled law,
the proceedings against a retired employee
cannot be initiated on such a belated stage
even when the authority concerned took
permission of proceedings under Regulation
351-A of the CSR.

10. Since the charge-sheet has not
been issued to the petitioner on or before
5 All. Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
his retirement and thereafter, four years
have already passed from the date of
permission taken under Regulation 351-A
of the CSR for initiating proceeding against
the petitioner for the alleged misconduct
done in the year 2010, so in any manner the
proceedings initiated by the department
against the petitioner are legally not
sustainable.

11. Sri Misra while referring the
dictum of the Apex Court in re; Union of
India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC
109, UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor,
(2007) 6 SCC 694, Coal India Limited v.
Saroj Mishra, (2007) 9 SCC 625, UCO
Bank and others v. M.B. Motwani (dead)
through LRs and others, 2023 AIR (SC)
5628 and State Bank of India and Others
v. Navin Kumar Sinha, 2024, LawSuit
(SC)
1018,
has
submitted
that
the
departmental proceedings would be treated
to have been initiated only when the
charge-sheet is issued.

12. Sri Misra has also referred the
judgments of the Apex Court in re; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, 1990
AIR (SC) 1308, Umesh Kumar Sinha v.
State of U.P. & Others, 2021 (6) AllLJ
778 and Amresh Shrivastava v. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors, 2025 4 JT
174/2025
LawSuit
(SC)
434,
by
submitting that there should be no delay in
initiating the proceedings against the
charged employee.

13. In support of his argument that
sanction granted under Regulation 351-A
of CSR would be valid if the sanction was
granted for the alleged misconduct took
place within four years from the date of
retirement of the employee, he has placed
reliance upon the judgments of this Court
in re; U.P. Power Corporation Limited
and 4 Others v. Anil Kumar Sharma and
Another,
Special
Appeal
Defective
No.646 of 2021 and Sunil Kumar Kushal
v. State Urban Development Authority
and Others, Writ-A No.43796 of 2007.

14. Per contra, Sri Pankaj Patel has
submitted that since the decision was taken
by the competent authority to initiate the
departmental inquiry against the petitioner,
vide order dated 19.01.2016, so for all
practical
purposes,
initiation
of
departmental inquiry would be treated
w.e.f. 19.01.2016, not from the date the
charge
sheet
has
been
issued
on
16.07.2024. He has placed reliance upon
the judgments of the Apex Court in re;
Delhi Development Authority v. H.C.
Khurana, (1993) 3 SCC 196 and Union
of India v. Kewal Kumar, (1993) 3 SCC
204. In re; H.C. Khurana (supra), Sri Patel
referred para-9, whereas in re; Kewal
Kumar (supra), he has referred paras 2 to
8.

15. Sri Patel has been confronted
on para-9 in re; H.C. Khurana (supra)
wherein the Apex Court has observed that
"we have no doubt that the decision to
initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot be
subsequent to the issuance of the chargesheet, since issue of the charge-sheet is a
consequence of the decision to initiate
disciplinary
proceedings.
Framing
the
charge-sheet, is the first step taken for
holding the enquiry into the allegations,
...", Sri Patel could not dispute the
aforesaid observation of the Apex Court.

16. Further, Sri Patel could not
demonstrate from paras 2 to 8 in re; Kewal
Kumar (supra) to the effect that the
departmental inquiry would be treated to
have been initiated from the date when the
order for initiation of departmental inquiry
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is issued. As a matter of fact, the facts and
circumstances in re; Kewal Kumar (supra)
are altogether different wherein the FIR
was registered by the CBI against Kewal
Kumar and on the basis of lodging FIR, his
promotion etc. was kept in sealed cover.

17. Sri Pankaj Patel has also been
confronted on the point as to whether the
provision of Regulation 351-A of CSR has
been rightly applied in the present case
inasmuch as the alleged incident took place
in the year 2010-11 but the order for
initiation of departmental inquiry issued on
19.01.2016 i.e. after about five years
whereas the sanction under Regulation 351A of CSR could have been sought in
respect of an event which took place not
more than four years before the institution
of such proceedings, Sri Patel could not
defend
the
impugned
order
dated
19.01.2016. Even the period of four years
had already expired when the petitioner
retired on 31.03.2015.

18. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
material available on record, I am of the
considered opinion that invoking the
provisions of Regulation 351-A of CSR,
the departmental proceedings should be in
respect of an event which took place not
more than four years before the institution
of such proceedings. Admittedly, at the
time of retirement or before the retirement
of the petitioner, no departmental inquiry
was initiated against him and he was not
placed under suspension. As a matter of
fact, the petitioner retired on 31.03.2015
having unblemished service records. If
there was any incident relating to the year
2010-11, the departmental inquiry against
the petitioner could have been initiated
before 2015 issuing charge sheet against
him
but
in
the
present
case,
the
departmental inquiry initiated against the
petitioner pursuant to the order dated
19.01.2016 and charge sheet has been
issued
on
16.07.2024,
therefore,
the
impugned order dated 19.01.2016 and
charge sheet dated 16.07.2024 are patently
illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, uncalled for
and against the provisions of Regulation
351-A of CSR.

19. The Apex Court in re; K.V.
Jankiraman (supra) has held that "it is
only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary
proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal
prosecution is issued to the employee that it
can
be
said
that
the
departmental
proceedings/criminal
prosecution
is
initiated against the employee." Further, the
Apex Court in re; Rajinder Lal Capoor
(supra) has held that any proceeding
against an employee shall be deemed to be
pending only when a chargesheet is issued.
Further, the Apex Court in re; Saroj
Mishra (supra) has reiterated the aforesaid
legal position. The Apex Court in re; M.B.
Motwani (dead) through LRs (supra)
reiterating the aforesaid position of law
observed that a departmental proceeding is
not initiated merely on issuance of show
cause notice, rather it is initiated only when
a chargesheet is issued because that is the
date of application of mind on the
allegations levelled against an employee by
the competent authority. Recently, the
Apex Court in re; Navin Kumar Sinha
(supra) has reiterated the aforesaid position
of law by observing that the disciplinary
proceedings can be initiated only when the
charge memo has been issued. If there was
any
requirement
to
conduct
the
departmental inquiry against the petitioner
for the alleged incident of the year 201011, prompt departmental inquiry could
have been conducted but the same has been
initiated after five years, vide order dated
5 All. Prof.. Anandh Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
427
19.01.2016 and charge sheet has
been issued on 16.07.2024 i.e. after about
thirteen years from the alleged incident. The
aforesaid inordinate delay initiating the
departmental proceedings has been rejected
and disapproved by the Apex Court in re;
Bani Singh (supra) by observing vide para-4
that "there is no satisfactory explanation for
the inordinate delay in issuing the charge
memo and we are also of the view that it will
be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry
to be proceeded with at this stage." The
judgment of the Apex Court in re; Bani
Singh (supra) has consistently been followed
by the Apex Court and this Court in so may
cases. Since the departmental inquiry is
treated to have been initiated w.e.f. the date
the charge sheet is issued, so the inordinate
delay initiating the departmental inquiry in
the present case would vitiate the entire
purpose to conduct the departmental inquiry.

20. Therefore, in view of what has
been considered above including the case
laws so cited by the parties, it is crystal clear
that the departmental inquiry would be
treated to have been initiated from the date
when the charge sheet is issued to the
charged employee seeking defence reply. In
the present case, limitation of four years
under Regulation 351-A of CSR has not been
followed by the competent authority as the
departmental inquiry has been initiated on
16.07.2024 when the charge sheet has been
issued to the petitioner i.e. after about thirteen
years from the incident in question, which is
not permissible under the law. Not only the
above, the order to initiate the departmental
inquiry dated 19.01.2016 is also beyond the
period of four years from the date of alleged
incident which is of the year 2010-11,
therefore,
the
impugned
order
dated
19.01.2016 under challenge in Writ-A
No.4265 of 2024 and the charge sheet dated
16.07.2024 under challenge in Writ-A
No.6945 of 2024 are nullity in the eyes of
law, therefore, the same are liable to be set
aside/quashed.

21. Accordingly, both the writ
petitions are allowed. A writ in the nature of
certiorari is issued quashing the order dated
19.01.2016 and the charge sheet dated
16.07.2024.

22. A writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued directing the opposite
parties to pay all consequential service
benefits to the petitioner including arrears of
pension, all retiral dues, if the same has not
been paid as yet, with interest at the rate of
7% per annum from the date those dues
accrued till the date of actual payment
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 10% per annum
on the delayed payment.

23. No order as to costs.

Writ A No. 6945 of 2024

Allowed vide my order of date passed on
separate sheets in Writ A No. 4265 of
2024.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 427
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 4492 of 2023
Connected with Writ A No. 2273 of 2023

Prof. Anandh Subramaniam ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents