# P.N.O. 052150337 Mohd. Farman v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 143
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-03-30
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 24979 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/p-n-o-052150337-mohd-farman-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47165
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplined forces - Not
cutting the beard despite being informed
by the Station House Officer when he was
posted as a constable is a violation of
direction/circular, being issued by the
higher officials. This is not only wrong
behavior but the same is misdemeanor,
misdeed
and
delinquency
of
the
petitioner. (Para 22)

The member of the disciplined force must
strictly follow the executive order or circulars or
instructions issued by the department or by the
higher authority of the department as those
orders etc. are as good as service conditions.
Furthermore, police force being a law enforcing
agency have to keep a secular image which
strengthens
the
countenance
of
national
integration. (Para 20)
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The petitioner taking the protection for growing
beard as a member of disciplined force may not
be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution
of India as the Article does not confer absolute
right in this regard. (Para 23)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. P.N.O. 052150337 Mohd. Farman Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
143
taking action against the Appellant in
accordance with law.

14. Once the grounds which have
been taken by the competent authority for
not holding an inquiry are tested on the
touchstone of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel
(supra) & Risal Singh (supra) it comes
out that both the grounds on which the
competent authority has found it not
reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry,
are not such grounds wherein the inquiry
was not possible. It is not contended that
there was any threat by the petitioner along
with his associates to terrorize, threaten or
intimidate witnesses who were going to
depose against him or threaten the
members of the family of the disciplinary
authority or there was any indiscipline or
insubordination
prevailing
in
the
department which could have co-erced or
terrified any individual.

15. Accordingly, considering the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Tulsiram Patel & Risal Singh (supra) it is
apparent that both the grounds which have
been invoked by the competent authority
for summarily dismissing the petitioner
from service are totally unsustainable in the
eyes of law. As such, the impugned order
dated 30.03.2018 is patently bad in the eyes
of law not standing the tests as laid down
by the Apex Court in the case of Tulsiram
Patel (supra). On the same grounds, the
appellate order dated 25/27.07.2018 is also
bad in the eyes of law.

16. Considering the aforesaid, the writ
petition is partly allowed. The impugned
orders
dated
30.03.2018
and
25/27.07.2018,
copies
of
which
are
annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition are
quashed.

17. Consequences to follow.

18. However, it would be open to the
respondents
to
proceed
against
the
petitioner for any act of his misconduct in
accordance with law and rules.
----------
(2021)08ILR A143
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN , J.

Service Single No. 24979 of 2020
&
Service Single No. 17225 of 2021

P.N.O. 052150337 Mohd. Farman
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Shujauddin Waris

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Disciplined forces - Not
cutting the beard despite being informed
by the Station House Officer when he was
posted as a constable is a violation of
direction/circular, being issued by the
higher officials. This is not only wrong
behavior but the same is misdemeanor,
misdeed
and
delinquency
of
the
petitioner. (Para 22)

The member of the disciplined force must
strictly follow the executive order or circulars or
instructions issued by the department or by the
higher authority of the department as those
orders etc. are as good as service conditions.
Furthermore, police force being a law enforcing
agency have to keep a secular image which
strengthens
the
countenance
of
national
integration. (Para 20)
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The petitioner taking the protection for growing
beard as a member of disciplined force may not
be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution
of India as the Article does not confer absolute
right in this regard. (Para 23)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Secretary, Ministry of Defence & ors. Vs
Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 Supreme
Court Cases 565

2. St. of Orissa & anr. Vs Sangram Keshari Misr
& anr. (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 311

3. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Upendra Singh (1994) 3
Supreme Court Cases 357

4. St. of U.P. Vs Shri Brahm Datt Sharma & anr.
AIR 1987 SC 943

5. Bijoe Emmanuel & ors. Vs St. of Kerala & ors.
(1986) 3 SCC 615

6. Zahiroddin Shamsoddin Bedade Vs St.of Mah.
& ors. 2013 (3) MH. LJ page 701

7. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs Church of
South India Trust Association CSI Cinod
Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1

8. Mohammed Zubair Corporal No. 781467-G Vs
U.O.I. & ors. (2017) 2 SCC 115

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

1. Heard Sri Amit Bose, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek
Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent.

2. By means of first writ petition, the
petitioner has assailed the Circular dated
26.10.2020 issued by the Director General
of Police, U.P. Lucknow (Annexure No.01)
whereby the guidelines have been issued in
respect of wearing proper uniform and
proper appearance warranted for the
member of disciplined force.

3. The petitioner has also assailed the
suspension order dated 05.11.2020 passed
by
Deputy
Inspector
General
of
Police/Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ayodhya (Faizabad) (Annexure no.02)
whereby the petitioner has been placed
under suspension in contemplation of
departmental inquiry for the reason that the
petitioner despite being the member of
disciplined force is maintaining his beard
and despite the specific direction being
issued by the superior authority to shave
the beard he did not follow such direction.

4. The petitioner has also assailed the
order dated 13.11.2020 passed by Deputy
Inspector
General
of
Police/Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Ayodhya
(Faizabad) (Annexure No.03) rejecting the
application
of
the
petitioner
dated
03.11.2020 whereby the petitioner had
sought permission to maintain his beard in
accordance with tenets of Muslim religion.

5. Whereas, by means of second Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 17225 of 2021 the
petitioner has assailed the charge-sheet
dated 29.07.2021 issued by Superintendent
of Police (Rural Area), Ayodhya (Faizabad)
which is contained as Annexure No.04 to
the writ petition.

6. Since the facts of both the cases are
common, therefore, both the writ petitions
are
being
decided
by
the
common
judgment/order.

7. In the first writ petition so far as the
order of suspension dated 05.11.2020 is
concerned, it is to be noted here that the
charge-sheet has been issued against the
8 All. P.N.O. 052150337 Mohd. Farman Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
145
petitioner on 29.07.2021 which has been
challenged in the second writ petition,
therefore, as per my considered opinion if
the charge-sheet is issued against any
employee who is under suspension, the
employee should submit his defence reply
taking all pleas and grounds which are
available to him enclosing therewith the
copies of relevant documents which are
necessary for disposal of the issue and the
departmental inquiry should be conducted
and concluded strictly in accordance with
law by following the principals of natural
justice with expedition preferably within a
period of three months from the date the
defence reply to the charge-sheet has been
filed. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority
may pass final order providing copy of the
inquiry report and seeking explanation
from the petitioner as per law. Therefore,
the suspension order may not be interfered
at least for the aforesaid period of three
months
till
the
departmental
inquiry
concludes. However, if the departmental
inquiry does not conclude subject to the
proper cooperation of the petitioner with
the inquiry proceedings within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of the
defence reply to the charge-sheet, the
suspension order shall be kept in abeyance
and the petitioner shall be entitled for
consequential relief. However, in that case
the departmental inquiry may go on and
final order may be passed but strictly in
accordance with law.

8. So far as the Circular dated
26.10.2020 issued by the Director General
of Police, U.P. Lucknow (Annexure No.01)
issuing guidelines in respect of wearing
proper
uniform
and
maintaining
the
appearance in a manner required for
member of disciplined force is concerned, I
am of the considered opinion that this is a
domain of competent authority to issue
guidelines in respect of wearing proper
uniform and keeping the appearance in a
manner required for the members of
disciplined force and no interference should
be done, inasmuch as, maintaining and
wearing proper uniform as well as
maintaining physical appearance is one of
the first and foremost requirement of the
members
of
disciplined
force.
The
parameters determined for the members of
disciplined force are not the same as of
parameters relating to the members of other
services. By means of Circular dated
26.10.2020, the Director General of Police,
U.P. Lucknow has followed other circulars
referred in the circular itself issued from
time to time with effect from 1985 till 2018
and the members of disciplined force are
strictly following such guidelines.

9. Therefore, I do not find any
infirmity or illegality in the Circular dated
26.10.2020. Likewise, the application of
the petitioner dated 03.11.2020 has been
rejected in terms of Circular dated
26.10.2020
assigning
the
reasons,
therefore, I do not find any infirmity or
illegality in the order dated 13.11.2020
rejecting the application of the petitioner
dated 03.11.2020 whereby he had requested
to maintain his beard in accordance with
the tenets of Muslim religion. The order
dated 13.11.2020 is a speaking and
reasoned order, therefore, it may not be
interfered.

10. In view of aforesaid facts and
reasons stated herein above, the first Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 24979 of 2020 is hereby
dismissed.

11. It is needless to say that the
Inquiry Officer shall conduct and conclude
the
departmental
inquiry
strictly
in
accordance
with
law,
following
the
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
principals of natural justice with expedition
preferably within a period of three months
subject to the cooperation of the petitioner,
inasmuch as, no departmental inquiry may
be concluded to its logical end unless the
employee cooperates with the inquiry
proceedings properly.

12. So far as the prayer of second writ
petition is concerned whereby the petitioner
has
assailed
the
charge-sheet
dated
29.07.2021 which is contained as Annexure
No.04
to
the
writ
petition,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel has
raised preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the writ petition by
submitting that this is a premature writ
petition, inasmuch as, the writ court may
normally not interfere with the charge-sheet
or show-cause-notice. So as to strengthen
his
aforesaid
objection
regarding
maintainability of the writ petition, Sri
Vivek Kumar Shukla has placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
re:- Secretary, Ministry of Defence and
others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha
[reported in (2012) 11 Supreme Court
Cases 565] referring para 10 which is being
reproduced herein below:-

"10. Ordinarily a writ application
does not lie against a charge-sheet or
show-cause notice for the reason that it
does not give rise to any cause of action. It
does not amount to an adverse order which
affects the right of any party unless the
same has been issued by a person having
no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ
lies when some right of a party is infringed.
In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the
right of a party. It is only when a final
order
imposing
the
punishment
or
otherwise adversely affecting a party is
passed, it may have a grievance and cause
of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or showcause notice in disciplinary proceedings
should not ordinarily be quashed by the
court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt
Sharma25, Bihar State Housing Board v.
Ramesh Kumar Singh26, Ulagappa v.
Commr.27, Special Director v. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse28 and Union of India v.
Kunisetty Satyanarayana29.)"

13. He has further drawn the attention
of the Court towards dictum of Hon'ble
Apex Court in re:- State of Orrisa and
another vs. Sangram Keshari Misra and
another [reported in (2010) 13 Supreme
Court Cases 311] referring para 10 which
reads as under:-

"10. Though there appears to be
some merit in the said contentions of the
first respondent, it is unnecessary to
examine
the
correctness
of
these
contentions as normally a charge-sheet is
not quashed prior to the conducting of the
enquiry on the ground that the facts stated
in the charge are erroneous. It is well
settled that the correctness or truth of the
charge is the function of the disciplinary
authority (vide Union of India v. Upendra
Singh1 SCC p. 362, para 6). Therefore we
reject the contention that the charge ought
to have been quashed without reserving to
the State to proceed in accordance with
law."

14. Further, he has drawn the
attention of the Court towards dictum of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in re:- Union of India
and others vs. Upendra Singh [reported in
(1994) 3 Supreme Court Cases 357]
referring para 6 which reads as under:-

"6. In the case of charges framed
in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or
court can interfere only if on the charges
framed
(read
with
imputation
or
8 All. P.N.O. 052150337 Mohd. Farman Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
147
particulars of the charges, if any) no
misconduct or other irregularity alleged
can be said to have been made out or the
charges framed are contrary to any law. At
this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction
to go into the correctness or truth of the
charges. The tribunal cannot take over the
functions of the disciplinary authority. The
truth or otherwise of the charges is a
matter for the disciplinary authority to go
into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of
the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter
comes to court or tribunal, they have no
jurisdiction to look into the truth of the
charges or into the correctness of the
findings recorded by the disciplinary
authority or the appellate authority as the
case may be. The function of the
court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the
parameters of which are repeatedly laid
down by this Court. It would be sufficient to
quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise
and
Taxation
Officer-cum-Assessing
Authority, Karnal v. Gopi Nath & Sons5.
The
Bench
comprising
M.N.
Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and
A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle
thus : (SCC p. 317, para 8)

"Judicial review, it is trite, is not
directed against the decision but is
confined to the decision-making process.
Judicial review cannot extend to the
examination
of
the
correctness
or
reasonableness of a decision as a matter of
fact. The purpose of judicial review is to
ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and not to ensure that the
authority after according fair treatment
reaches, on a matter which it is authorised
by law to decide, a conclusion which is
correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial
review is not an appeal from a decision but
a review of the manner in which the
decision is made. It will be erroneous to
think that the Court sits in judgment not
only on the correctness of the decision
making process but also on the correctness
of the decision itself."

15. He has also placed reliance on the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in re:-
State of U.P. vs. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma
and another [reported in AIR 1987 SC
943) by submitting that the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that when a show-cause
notice was issued to a government servant
under the statutory provisions calling upon
him
to
show
cause,
ordinarily
the
government servant must place his case
before the authority concerned by showing
cause and the courts should be reluctant to
interfere with the notice at that stage unless
the notice is shown to have been issued
palpably without any authority of law. The
purpose of issuing show cause is to afford
opportunity of hearing to the government
servant and once cause is shown it is open
to the Government to consider the matter in
the light of the facts and submissions
placed by the government servant and only
thereafter a final decision in the matter
could be taken. Interference by the Court
before that stage would be premature.

16. Therefore, on the basis of
aforesaid settled propositions of law, the
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel,
Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla has submitted that
the charge-sheet should not be interfered by
this Court.

17. However, Sri Amit Bose, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that since the
alleged conduct of the petitioner does not
come within the purview of misconduct,
therefore, no departmental inquiry against
the petitioner should be conducted in the
light of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in
re:- Upendra Singh (supra). Therefore, the
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned charge-sheet is a nullity in the
eyes of law.

18. Sri Amit Bose referring the
dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re:-
Bijoe Emmanuel and others vs. State of
Kerala and others [reported in (1986) 3
SCC 615] has submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that even if any
student or set of students does or do not
sing National Anthem in school prayer due
to their religion belief, even such right is
protected
under
Article
25
of
the
Constitution of India, therefore, rejecting
the request of the petitioner for maintaining
beard in the light of Circular dated
26.10.2020 is violative of Article 25 of the
Constitution of India.

19. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, I am of the considered
opinion that a member of a disciplined
force must strictly follow the executive
orders or circulars or instructions issued by
the department or by the higher authority of
the department as those executive orders
etc. are as good as service condition.

20. As a matter of fact such executive
intimation/order
has
been
issued
to
maintain the discipline in the force
directing to keep the appearance and
uniform befitting for the members of
disciplined force. Further, police force has
to be a disciplined force and being a law
enforcing agency, it is necessary that such
force must have secular image which
strengthen the countenance of national
integration. Sri Amit Bose, learned Senior
Advocate while assailing the charge-sheet
has submitted that the conduct of the
petitioner not cutting his beard despite the
specific direction being issued by the
superior authority does not come within the
purview of misconduct, therefore, no
charge-sheet should have been issued
against the petitioner to conduct the
departmental inquiry.

21. So as to appreciate the aforesaid
submission of Sri Amit Bose, I am
considering the definition of "Misconduct"
as per Black's Law Dictionary Ninth
Edition is a dereliction of duty; unlawful or
improper behaviour. As per The New
International
Webster's
Comprehensive
Dictionary
of
the
English
Language
(Encyclopedic
2013
Edition),
the
"Misconduct" is to behave improperly, to
mismanage or bad behaviour. As per P.
Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon
Encyclopedic Law Dictionary with Legal
Maxims, Latin Terms and Words & Phrases
Second Edition, the "Misconduct" means a
transgression of some established and
defend rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour,
willful incharacter, improper or wrong
behaviour,
misdemeanor,
misdeed,
misbehaviour, delinquency, impropriety,
mismanagement etc.

22. Therefore, non-cutting the beard
despite making the petitioner aware by the
In-charge Station House Officer of police
station Khandasa when the petitioner was
posted as constable to the effect that the
police personnel may not have beard as it is
a violation of direction/circular being
issued by the higher officials is not only a
wrong
behaviour
but
the
same
is
misdemeanor, misdeed and delinquency of
the petitioner. So the submission of Sri
Amit Bose is not acceptable to the effect
that the alleged conduct of the petitioner is
not
misconduct.
However,
his
misconduct/misdeed shall be examined by
the Inquiry Officer during the course of
inquiry, strictly in accordance with law by
8 All. P.N.O. 052150337 Mohd. Farman Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
149
affording him an opportunity of hearing on
that no observations of this Court are
required.

23. So far as the submission regarding
protection of fundamental right enshrined
under Article 25 of the Constitution of
India is concerned, it is clear that Article 25
guarantees freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice and propagation of
religion, therefore, having beard by a
member of disciplined force may not be
protected
under
Article
25
of
the
Constitution of India, inasmuch as, Article
25 of the Constitution of India does not
confer absolute right in this regard, all the
rights have to be viewed in the context and
letter and sprit in which they have framed
under the Constitution. As a matter of fact
rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the
Constitution
of
India
have
inbuilt
restrictions.

24. Sri Amit Bose, learned Senior
Advocate has drawn the attention of the
Court towards Annexure no.12 which is
judgment and order dated 12.12.2012
passed by the Division Bench of Mumbai
High Court in re:- Zahiroddin Shamsoddin
Bedade vs. State of Maharashtra and
others [ reported in 2013 (3) MH. LJ page
701] whereby the Division Bench has held
that keeping beard by a police constable
professing Islam is not a fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India. Sri Bose has
submitted that the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the
Mumbai High Court has been assailed
before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 920 of
2013. The Hon'ble Apex Court has issued
notices to the parties granting interim
protection to that petitioner staying the
disciplinary proceedings vide order dated
22.01.2013. Therefore,
Sri
Bose
has
submitted that since the final adjudication
is yet to come by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the
identical
issue,
the
pending
departmental
proceedings
against
the
present petitioner may be stayed.

25. Replying the aforesaid point, Sri
Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel has referred the
dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re:- Shree
Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of
South India Trust Association CSI Cinod
Secretariat, Madras [reported in (19992) 3
SCC 1] by submitting that the Hon'ble
Apex Court has not stayed the judgment
and order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the
Division Bench of Mumbai High Court.
Even if such order was stayed issuing
notices to the opposite parties, in that case
the judgment and order of Mumbai High
Court would have been a good law unless
such order is quashed/set-aside by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. As per Sri Shukla,
since the notices have been issued in that
case by the Hon'ble Apex Court without
staying the operation of the judgment and
order
dated
12.12.2012,
only
the
disciplinary proceedings have been stayed,
therefore, the judgment and order dated
12.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench
of Mumbai High Court may not be treated
as nonest in the eyes of law. As a matter of
fact till the quashing of judgment and order
passed by the Mumbai High Court, such
judgment shall hold the field and shall be
treated as good law.

26. Three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in re:- Mohammed Zubair Corporal
No. 781467-G vs. Union of India and
others [reported in (2017) 2 SCC 115] has
held that regulations and policies in regard
to personal appearance are not intended to
discriminate against religious beliefs nor do
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
they have effect doing so. Their object and
purpose
is
to
ensure
uniformity,
cohesiveness, discipline and order which
are indispensable to the force.

27. In this case also the Hon'ble Apex
Court was examining the question as to
whether the police personnel can keep
beard taking shelter of Article 25 and 26 of
the Constitution of India. Before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in re:- Mohammed
Zubair (supra) this fact could not be
established by the litigant as to whether
there is any specific mandate in Islam
which prohibits the cutting of hairs or
shaving the facial hairs and no substantial
material was placed before the Hon'ble
Apex Court to convince that a police
personnel professing Islam may not cut his
beard or hairs. Para 15 & 18 of the
judgment are being reproduced herein
below:-

"15. During the course of the
hearing, we had inquired of Shri Salman
Khurshid,
learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants
whether there is a specific mandate in
Islam which "prohibits the cutting of hair
or shaving of facial hair". The learned
Senior Counsel, in response to the query of
the Court, indicated that on this aspect,
there are varying interpretations, one of
which is that it is desirable to maintain a
beard. No material has been produced
before this Court to indicate that the
appellant professes a religious belief that
would bring him within the ambit of
Regulation
425(b)
which
applies
to
"personnel whose religion prohibits the
cutting off the hair or shaving off the face
of its members". The policy letters which
have been issued by the Air Headquarters
from time to time do not override the
provisions of Regulation 425(b) which have
a statutory character. The policy circulars
are only clarificatory or supplementary in
nature."

"18. We see no reason to
take a view of the matter at variance with
the judgment under appeal. The appellant
has been unable to establish that his case
falls within the ambit of Regulation 425(b).
In the circumstances, the Commanding
Officer was acting within his jurisdiction in
the interest of maintaining discipline of the
Air Force. The appellant having been
enrolled as a member of the Air Force was
necessarily required to abide by the
discipline of the Force. Regulations and
policies in regard to personal appearance
are not intended to discriminate against
religious beliefs nor do they have the effect
of doing so. Their object and purpose is to
ensure uniformity, cohesiveness. discipline
and order which are indispensable to the
Air Force, as indeed to every Armed Force
of the Union."

28. In view of the facts, reasons and
case laws so cited by the respective parties,
I do not find any infirmity or illegality in
the
impugned
charge-sheet
dated
29.07.2021 issued against the petitioner by
the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ayodhya/Faizabad (Annexure No.04 to the
writ petition). I am also of the considered
opinion that the departmental inquiry
against the petitioner should be conducted
and concluded to its logical end as directed
above. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in re:- Upendra Singh (supra) may
not rescue the petitioner, inasmuch as, the
allegation levelled in the charge-sheet,
prima facie, constitute misconduct subject
to the specific findings of the Inquiry
Officer on that.

29. Therefore, I hereby dismiss the
writ petition being misconceived and direct
8 All. Ramu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
151
the Inquiry Officer to conduct and
conclude
the
inquiry
against
the
petitioner in a manner directed above
and the disciplinary authority may pass
final order strictly as per law.

30. It is, however, made clear that
no prejudice shall be caused to the
petitioner for the reason that he has
filed
the
aforesaid
writ
petitions
challenging the suspension order and
charge-sheet.

31. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A151
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 29822 of 2017

Ramu & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Prashant Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Wages - If any employee is
discharging his duties on daily wages basis for
substantially long period, he should be paid
minimum of pay scale admissible for Class-IV
employee. (para 4)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Sabha Shanker Dube Vs Divisional forest
Officer & ors. (2019) 12 SCC 297 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. By means of this petition, the
petitioners have prayed following relief;

"(a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of MANDAMUS
commanding
the
opposite
parties
to
consider the cases of the petitioners for
payment of the wages equivalent to the
minimum of pay scale of Class IV employee
with permissible allowances in the Forest
Department within a specified period."

3. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the petitioners were
appointed between November, 1994 to
November, 2009 on daily wages basis in
the Forest Department, Lakhimpur Kheri
on different dates and are continuing on
daily wages against Group-D post till date.
He has further submitted that so many
similarly placed employees are getting
payment of minimum of pay scale. He has
further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in catena of cases has held that if any
employee is discharging his duties on daily
wages basis for substantially long period,
his regularization should be considered and
till consideration of regularization, he
should be paid minimum scale of pay
admissible for Class-IV employee.

4. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and perusing the material
available on record, I am of the considered
opinion
that
if
the
petitioners
are
continuously discharging their duties since
their initial engagement as daily wagers,