# Pragi Lal v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1619
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-11-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34824 of 2012
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pragi-lal-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42380
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Sri J.N. Maurya
Sri Yashwant Verma
Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava

U.P. Government Servants (Disciplinary
and Appeal Rules 1999, Rule -4)-earlier
suspension
order
revoked-second
suspension for same allegation for such
charges-no major punishment could be
awarded-held-subsequent
suspension
without
application
of
mind-no
mechanical
arbitrary
exercise
permissible-order quashed with cost of
Rs. 25,000

Held: Para-18

In view of above, both the writ petitions
are allowed. The impugned orders of
suspension dated 23.06.2012 are hereby
quashed. The petitioner is also entitled
to cost, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/-
for each set of writ petitions, against the
respondents with further direction that
after payment of cost to petitioner(s) by
respondent no. 1, it shall have liberty to
recover the said amount from official
concerned
who
held
the
office
of
respondent no. 3 at the relevant time
when impugned orders of suspension
were passed, after making such inquiry
as
permissible
in
law.
I
am
also
constrained
to
direct
the
Principal
1620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Secretary to see whether such official
who
passed
impugned
orders
of
suspension, is a person fit to occupy such
a
responsible
office
as
that
of
respondent no. 3, and take appropriate
action/decision in the matter.
Case Law discussed:
2004 (3) UPLBEC 2934

## Text

3 All] Pragi Lal V. State of U.P. and others
1619
mistake in short deposit of amount was
not deliberate and intentional but there
was some calculation mistake or there
was some human error or something like
that. In other words, dictum laid down in
Mam Chand Pal (supra), as discussed
above, is attracted where petty shortfall is
not attributable to a deliberate mischief on
the part of tenant but for something over
which he has no control or otherwise bona
fide.

7. In the present case, it was not the
case of petitioners at any point of time
that deficit was on account of any clerical
or calculation mistake. On the contrary,
they have always asserted that this is a
correct amount which ought to have been
deposited and this is what has been done.
Having failed in his attempt in both the
Courts below, where benefit under
Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 has been
denied and decree of eviction has been
passed, they have now come to this Court
but here also, in this writ petition, there is
no averment that short deposit was on
account of any clerical or calculation
mistake. This show that due to deliberate
intentional reasons short deposit was
made by asserting that petitioner was not
liable to deposit more than Rs.8,200/-.
Reliance thus placed on Apex Court's
decision in Mam Chand Pal (supra) has
no
application
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case.

8. In view of the above, I find no
merit in the writ petition.

9. Dismissed.

10. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
---------

 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34824 of 2012

Pragi Lal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.S. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri J.N. Maurya
Sri Yashwant Verma
Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava

U.P. Government Servants (Disciplinary
and Appeal Rules 1999, Rule -4)-earlier
suspension
order
revoked-second
suspension for same allegation for such
charges-no major punishment could be
awarded-held-subsequent
suspension
without
application
of
mind-no
mechanical
arbitrary
exercise
permissible-order quashed with cost of
Rs. 25,000

Held: Para-18

In view of above, both the writ petitions
are allowed. The impugned orders of
suspension dated 23.06.2012 are hereby
quashed. The petitioner is also entitled
to cost, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/-
for each set of writ petitions, against the
respondents with further direction that
after payment of cost to petitioner(s) by
respondent no. 1, it shall have liberty to
recover the said amount from official
concerned
who
held
the
office
of
respondent no. 3 at the relevant time
when impugned orders of suspension
were passed, after making such inquiry
as
permissible
in
law.
I
am
also
constrained
to
direct
the
Principal
1620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Secretary to see whether such official
who
passed
impugned
orders
of
suspension, is a person fit to occupy such
a
responsible
office
as
that
of
respondent no. 3, and take appropriate
action/decision in the matter.
Case Law discussed:
2004 (3) UPLBEC 2934

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri D.S. Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents. Sri
Alok Kumar Srivastava, Conservator of
Forest, Jhansi is present alongwith record. I
have also perused the record.

2. In both these writ petitions the
questions of law and facts are common,
therefore, have been heard together and are
being decided by this common judgment.
However, since the facts are common, this
Court is taking up the facts of leading writ
petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 34824 of
2012 for the purpose of brevity.

3. The petitioner was initially
appointed as Forester on 15.12.1990 and at
the relevant time giving cause of action for
present writ petition, he was posted as
Deputy Forest Ranger in Forest Range,
Lalitpur Social Forestry Division, Lalitpur.
He was placed under suspension vide order
dated 16.02.2012 on the allegations that a
Joint Forest Management Committee held a
preliminary inquiry and found him prima
facie guilty of non observing its duties and
functions in respect to plantation, social
forestry
improvement
etc.
and
also
permitting mining within 100 meters of
forest area which is in violation of orders of
Apex Court. It was also stated that a
departmental inquiry is in contemplation.
The aforesaid order of suspension, however,
was revoked and petitioner was reinstated
with full benefit of salary by disciplinary
authority, i.e., Sri B.C. Tiwari vide order
dated 29.02.2012, who had also passed the
order of suspension. It, however, stated that
departmental inquiry against him shall
continue. A charge sheet dated 24.05.2012
was served upon petitioner containing a
single charge.

4. The petitioner submitted reply
dated 15.06.2012. Thereafter again vide
order dated 23.06.2012 the petitioner was
placed under suspension. This order has
been assailed alleging that there is a
complete non application of mind inasmuch
as earlier Sri B.C. Tiwari, the then
Conservator of Forest, suspended petitioner
on 16.02.2012 but thereafter reinstated vide
order dated 29.02.2012. After almost three
months, a charge sheet was served upon
petitioner which was replied by him and no
further action has been taken thereafter
except that a fresh order of suspension has
been passed on 23.06.2012 which is almost
identical to the earlier order of suspension
which has already been revoked, except the
change of order number and date, as also
the name of authority concerned. Since
Conservator of Forest appears to have been
changed in the meantime and one Sri Alok
Kumar Srivastava had joined, he passed the
impugned order of suspension.

5. The argument was appreciated by
this Court and the order of suspension was
stayed on 07.08.2012 giving time to
respondents to file their counter affidavit.

6. Para 2 and 3 of interim order dated
07.08.2012 reads as under:

"2. From bare perusal of two orders of
suspension this Court find that except the
order number and date, in all other respect,
the two orders are identical. Nothing has
3 All] Pragi Lal V. State of U.P. and others
1621
been said that when petitioner was already
reinstated then what was the occasion to
pass a fresh order of suspension which is
identically worded to earlier order of
suspension, which has already been revoked
by reinstating the petitioner on 29.02.2012.

3. Learned Standing Counsel prays for
and is allowed two weeks time to file
counter affidavit. Petitioner may file
rejoinder affidavit, if any, within one week
thereafter."

7. A counter affidavit has been filed
by respondents, which is sworn by Sri
Ashok Kumar Rai, Forest Range Officer,
Lalitpur. It is stated therein that the earlier
order of suspension dated 16.02.2012 was
revoked by Conservator of Forest under the
directions of Chief Conservator of Forest,
Buldelkhand
Zone,
Jhansi
reinstating
petitioner with full salary. Subsequently a
complaint was received on 15.06.2012 from
Secretary, Japan International Corporation
and the said complaint was inquired by a
two member committee headed by Sri Iqbal
Singh, Additional Principal Chief Forest
Conservator under Government's direction
contained in its letter dated 24.02.2012.
Pursuant to report submitted by the said
committee, the State Government issued
order dated 22.06.2012 directing to hold
departmental inquiry against the Forest
Officer and Range Officer of Field
Management Unit and pursuant thereto the
petitioner was suspended on 23.06.2012.

8. When it was pointed out to learned
Standing Counsel that there is a discrepancy
in the facts stated in para 6 of counter
affidavit, inasmuch when the complaint was
received on 15.06.2012, where was the
occasion to direct for an inquiry almost four
months ahead, i.e., on 24.02.2012, he
realized some mistake and referred to the
supplementary counter affidavit where a
clarification is given in para 8 that the
complaint was received on 15.02.2012 and
not on 15.06.2012.

9. Thereupon he was required to place
the relevant record before court inasmuch if
the complaint was already there, on
15.02.2012, and thereafter petitioner was
earlier suspended on 16.02.2012, what was
the occasion to reinstate him on 29.02.2012
and again by suspending with an identically
worded order. He was also confronted with
office order dated 12.10.2012 filed as
Annexure-1 to the supplementary counter
affidavit wherein the incident relating to
earlier suspension order has been mentioned
in first paragraph and in second paragraph it
is said that another complaint was received
subsequently which resulted in second order
of suspension but the fact remain that
complaint dated 15.02.2012 was received
before the earlier order of suspension passed
on 16.02.2012 and a committee to hold
preliminary inquiry on the complaint was
also constituted on 24.02.2012 yet within a
week thereafter, i.e., on 29.02.2012 the
suspension order dated 16.02.2012 was
revoked with full benefit of salary to
petitioner and after four months thereafter
the Conservator of Forest passed identically
worded order on 23.06.2012 in respect
whereof no justification has come forth
except that the order of suspension was
made pursuant to State Government's
direction contained in its letter dated
22.06.2012.

10. Consequently the original record
has been produced before this Court. It
shows that the committee headed by Sri
Iqbal Singh, Additional Chief Forest
Conservator submitted report on 02.04.2012
with the following conclusions:
1622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

"lkekftd okfudh ou izHkkx]yfyriqj ds xzke
la;qDr ou izcU/k ds lnL; lfpoksa us eq[; ou laj{kd]
cqUnsy[k.M o`Rr] >kWlh Jh mek'kadj flag rFkk ou
laj{kd] cqUnsy[k.M o`Rr >kWlh Jh ch0lh0frokjh ds
fo:) dh x;h f'kdk;r ij gLrk{kj fd;k tkuk
Lohdkj fd;kA izdj.k esa fdlh fu"d"kZ rd igWqpus ds
fy, izR;{k lk{;ksa dh vko';drk gSA O;fDrxr :i ls
fy[ks x;s i=ksa esa lnL; lfpoksa us mijksDr vf/kdkfj;ksa
ds fo:) fdlh izdkj dh f'kdk;r u gksus dk mYys[k
fd;k gS fdUrq lkewfgd :i ls fy[ks x;s i=ksa esa
mUgksaus iqu% xEHkhj vkjksaiks dh iqujko`fRr dh gSA
lkewfgd :i ls fy[ks x;s i= esa tkWp gsrq fof'k"V
fooj.k miyC/k ugh djk;k gSA ;|fi izR;{k lk{;ksa ds
vHkko esa fdlh fu"d"kZ rd igqWapuk lEHko ugha gS fdUrq
;g Li"V gS fd lkekftd okfudh ou izHkkx] yfyriqj
dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa lkekU; ugha gS rFkk mijksDr
vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa lnL; lfpoksa ds e/; ijLij vfo'okl
o Hk; dh fLFkfr mRiUu gks x;h gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa
ts0vkbZ0lh0,0 ifj;kstuk ds dk;ksZ ds fgr esa mijksDr
vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vU;= LFkkukUrj.k djuk mfpr gksxkA"

"Member Secretaries of Village Joint
Forest Management of Social Forestry
Division, Lalitpur have admitted having
signed the complaint made against Sri Uma
Shanker Singh, Chief Forest Conservator,
Bundelkhand Circle, Jhansi and Sri B.C.
Tiwari, Forest Conservator, Bundelkhand
Circle, Jhansi. In order to reach any finding
in the matter, there is need of direct
evidences. In the letters written individually,
the members have not mentioned any sort of
complaint against the aforesaid officers. But
in the letters written collectively, they have
reiterated serious allegations. In the letters
written collectively, they have not provided
specific details for investigation. Though,
for lack of direct evidences, it is not possible
to come to any conclusion yet it is clear that
the situation in Social Forestry Division,
Lalitpur is not normal and mutual distrust
and sense of fear has cropped up between
the aforesaid officers and the Member
Secretaries. In such a circumstance, in the
interest of work of JICA project, it would be
appropriate to transfer the aforesaid
officers elsewhere."
(English Translation by the Court)

11. Having gone through the aforesaid
record much could have been said but I am
refraining
myself
from
making
any
observations which may prejudice the
pending or contemplated inquiry against
petitioner since I am not inclined at this
stage to interfere with the same but is
confining my scope of judicial review only
in respect to suspension order dated
23.06.2012.

12. It appears, when earlier order of
suspension was passed on 16.02.2012, prior
thereto an inspection was made by Chief
Conservator
of
Forest,
Jhansi
on
14.02.2012. Immediately whereafter a joint
complaint was made by Secretaries, Joint
Management of Village JICA Project,
Social Forestry Division, Lalitpur against
the Conservator of Forest as well as Chief
Conservator of Forest and the said
complaint
was
signed
by
48
persons/Secretaries of different committees
including the petitioner. Within forty eight
hours
thereafter,
on
16.02.2012,
the
petitioner was placed under suspension. In
respect to area governed by Joint Forest
Committee Kapasi, the Regional Forest
Officer, Jakhora headed a team to verify
plantation, conditions of plants etc., who
submitted report on 29.03.2012. On the
same date, the Chief Conservator of Forest
issued an order No. 3347/Sangh, dated
29.02.2012 and pursuant thereto, the then
Conservator of Forest, Sri B.C. Tiwari
revoked the order of suspension. Thereafter
Deputy Regional Forest Officer, Mehrauni
(Lalitpur) Sri V.K. Mishra was appointed as
Inquiry Officer on 17.05.2012 and a charge
sheet
was
issued
to
petitioner
on
24.05.2012. The petitioner submitted his
reply on 15.06.2012 and nothing happened
thereafter. In the meantime the complaint
3 All] Pragi Lal V. State of U.P. and others
1623
made
against
to
senior
officers
by
Secretaries of Joint Forest Committee,
(almost the entire Social Forestry Division)
was enquired into by senior officials,
namely, Sri V.K. Thakur, the Chief
Conservator of Forest/Project Director,
JICA, Lucknow and Sri Iqbal Singh,
Principal
Chief
Conservator
of
Forest/Project
Research
and
Training
Lucknow who submitted their report on
02.04.2012. The State Government issued
an order on 22.06.2012 and pursuant thereto
an identically worded order of suspension
has again been issued on 23.06.2012 which
do not explain as to why in the identical
circumstances second order of suspension
was justified.

13. The power of suspension has been
conferred upon the competent authority vide
Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules,
1999"). It says that disciplinary authority/
appointing authority shall apply its mind
before suspending an official, and, if it is
satisfied that the charges, if proved, may
entail major penalty, it may suspend the
officer concerned. In the present case it is
evident from record and also admitted by
Conservator of Forest, present in the Court,
that the order of suspension was passed in
mechanical exercise so as to comply the
directions issued by State Government.
There is nothing either in the counter
affidavit or in the original record produced
before this Court that anybody applied
its/his mind to find out the expediency of
suspending the petitioner again when earlier
suspension for the same reason has already
resulted in his reinstatement with full
benefit of salary. Meaning thereby the
competent authority was already satisfied
that there was no such serious allegation
against petitioner which may result in any
penalty whatsoever or atleast a major
penalty and, therefore, reinstated him with
full benefit of salary.

14. It cannot be doubted that a higher
authority than appointing authority can also
issue appropriate direction to place an
officer under suspension, but then there
must be an application of mind on its part
also. If it is not aware of the complete facts
or has not applied its mind as to in what
circumstances the official was earlier
suspended and reinstated, and, now whether
a suspension is required again without
which an impartial and fair inquiry may not
be possible, then order of suspension passed
by it would suffer the vice of nonapplication of mind.

15. In other words this Court is of the
view that in order to place an officer under
suspension again, on the same identical
allegation, a strong case has to be made out
by the respondents that suspension on the
second
time
become
inevitable.
No
mechanical
and
arbitrary
exercise
is
permissible. An order of suspension is a
serious thing for a Government Official. It
is not in a routine manner that an employee
can be placed under suspension. The
statutory Rules framed by rule framing
authority also indicate to this fact that
suspension in one or the other manner, if
not results in suo moto punishment, yet, it
causes something adverse to employee
concerned and, therefore, it should not be
passed in a mechanical manner. The Rules
also demonstrate that charges if not enough
serious which may not entail in a major
penalty, an order of suspension cannot be
passed. This mandate contained in rules
demonstrate that an order of suspension
visits civil consequences to the concerned
employee and, therefore, should be passed
in a limited sphere enshrined in the rules
1624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
very specifically. Some of the relevant civil
consequences are that during the period of
suspension, the Government servant is not
entitled for full salary and paid, either only
half of salary or 3/4, as the case may be,
within which he has to manage his and his
family's all affairs. It goes without saying
that amongst the colleagues and social
circle, the Government servant carries a
stigma of "under suspension" which affects
not only the individual Government servant
but every member of his family. In the
future carrier prospects also the factum of
suspension of the Government servant plays
its own role. Its negative aspects/ colour is
not wiped out all together. The shadow of
suspension follow a Government servant
throughout his carrier. Even his family does
not remain untouched. Commenting on the
effect of suspension when it is not by way
of punishment but in a contemplated and
pending inquiry, a Division Bench of this
Court in Gajendra Singh Vs. High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, 2004 (3)
UPLBEC 2934 has observed as under :

"We need not forget that when a
Government
officer
is
placed
under
suspension, he is looked with suspicious
eyes not only by his collogues and friends
but by public at large too." (emphasis
added)

16. In the present case, from the
discussions made above this Court is fully
satisfied that the impugned order of
suspension dated 23.06.2012 has been
issued by respondent no. 3 wholly illegally
and showing a total non-application of
mind. It is patently arbitrary and is not
inconformity with requirement of Rule 4 of
Rules, 1999.

17. I am also constrained to observe
that the manner in which the impugned
orders of suspension have been passed and
the things have taken place subsequently
also, show that officer concerned, who
passed impugned orders, holding the office
of Conservator of Forest, Bundelkhand
Circle, Jhansi, at the relevant time, has
neither acted legally nor has applied its
mind nor otherwise shown due regard to the
rule of law so that unmindful illegal orders
are not issued abruptly giving a cause of
grievance to the departmental employee(s)
and also adding a burden on this court in the
shape of avoidable litigation.

18. In view of above, both the writ
petitions are allowed. The impugned orders
of suspension dated 23.06.2012 are hereby
quashed. The petitioner is also entitled to
cost, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/- for
each set of writ petitions, against the
respondents with further direction that after
payment of cost to petitioner(s) by
respondent no. 1, it shall have liberty to
recover the said amount from official
concerned
who
held
the
office
of
respondent no. 3 at the relevant time when
impugned orders of suspension were
passed, after making such inquiry as
permissible in law. I am also constrained to
direct the Principal Secretary to see whether
such official who passed impugned orders
of suspension, is a person fit to occupy such
a responsible office as that of respondent
no. 3, and take appropriate action/decision
in the matter.

19. A copy of this judgment shall be
remitted to Principal Secretary, Forest
forthwith by Registrar General so as to
reach him within three weeks from today.
---------
3 All] Jag Jiwan Ram V. State of U.P. and others
1625
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41737 of 2012

Jag Jiwan Ram

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Kumar Aditya.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Ramanand Pandey (S.C.)
C.S.C.

U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1947-Rule-47Gram Panchahyat in open meeting in
presence of Tehsil authorities-passed
resolution for allotment of Fair Price
Shop-being failure complainant filedS.D.O.-based upon enquiry report of Naib
Tehsildar-passed impugned cancellation
order-without permission of D.M.-heldnor requisition signed by two third
members-held-action of S.D.O. Wholly
without jurisdiction, illegal.

Held: Para-7

 In such circumstances, if we consider
this factual aspect on the touchstone of
the relevant rules and Government order
as discussed above, we find, as is
apparent from the order impugned, that
neither the matter was brought to the
notice of the concerned Collector, who
could direct for any enquiry in the matter
and also for holding a fresh meeting to
take resolution, as per the Government
order dated 03rd July, 1990 nor as per
the Rule 40 of the Rules any requisition
signed by two-third members of the
Gram Panchayat was given consenting
for
reconsideration
of
the
matter.
Moreover, stopping of execution of the
resolution taken in the open meeting of
the Gram Panchayat is also beyond the
jurisdiction
of
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate as per the provisions of
Section 96 of the Act. Thus, according to
us, the impugned order passed by the
respondent no. 2 is wholly illegal and
without jurisdiction and as such, the
same cannot be sustained, particularly
when neither any other provision has
been
shown
by
the
respondents
supporting the order passed by the
respondent no. 2 nor any material fact
has been brought to the notice of the
Court controverting the submissions of
the petitioner.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1967 SC 1170; AIR 1987 SC 537

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, A.C.J.)

Amitava Lala, ACJ.-- By means of
this writ petition, the petitioner seeks relief
for quashing of the impugned order dated
14th August, 2012 passed by the Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Tehsil
Rampur
Maniharan,
District
Saharanpur,
the
respondent no. 2 herein, whereby the
resolution taken by the concerned Gram
Panchayat on 10th July, 2012 for allotment
of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner
has been rejected and again the meeting has
been directed to be convened on 18th
August, 2012 for taking a fresh resolution.

2. Briefly stated facts, according to the
petitioner, are that in Gram Panchayat
Pahasu,
Block
and
Tehsil
Rampur
Maniharan, District Saharanpur (in short
called "Gram Panchayat"), on account of
death of fair price shop dealer, vacancy
arose for allotment of said shop to the new
dealer. Such vacancy was informed to the
respondent no. 2, who directed to hold
meeting of Gram Panchayat on 09th June,
2012 for taking resolution in connection
thereto. However, on 09th June, 2012 the