# Prem Chand v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1148
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-24
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 19131 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-chand-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51981
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Constitution Of India - Article 226 -
Scope of - does not apply to private
registered societies - which are not
governed by any statute or subject to State
control - Maintainability - The Uttar
Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board
Act, 1960 - The Uttar Pradesh Cooperative. Societies Act, 1965 - U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service
Regulations, 1975 - writ petition is not
maintainable against a private registered
society
(like
Kshetriya
Shri
Gandhi
Ashram) which is not an instrumentality of
the State and does not discharge any public
functions,
in
respect
of
employment
matters governed by its own rules and
regulations (such Khadi Ashram Seva
Niyamawali) - Article 12 - State or
Authority. (Para - 12 to 15)

Petitioner, a Supervisor at Kshetriya Shri Gandhi
Ashram - transferred after filing a complaint
against Ashram - for alleged forgery and misuse
of funds - inquiry was conducted, and bank
accounts were frozen - petitioner faced threats -
eventually dismissed without an inquiry - asked
to vacate official quarters - preliminary objection
- writ petition not maintainable - Khadi Ashram
Seva Niyamawali not a set of statutory rules that
can be enforced by a writ petition.
(Para -1 to
8)

HELD: - Preliminary objection raised by
respondents upheld. No violation of a public duty
or public obligation cast upon Kshetriya Shri
Gandhi Ashram. Writ petition not maintainable
against a private registered society (Kshetriya
Shri
Gandhi
Ashram),
which
is
not
an
instrumentality of the State and does not
discharge any public functions. (Para - 16)

Writ
Petition
Dismissed
as
not
maintainable. ( E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pursue fresh proceedings against the
petitioner. If the respondents elect to pursue
fresh proceedings, the issue of arrears would
be for the respondents to decide dependent
upon the event in fresh proceedings to be
taken. If however, the respondents do not
elect to pursue fresh proceedings, the
petitioner would be entitled to 50% of the
arrears of his emoluments for the period that
he has remained out of service. If fresh
proceedings are pursued by the respondents,
it goes without saying that these would be
concluded expeditiously with which the
petitioner shall cooperate.

26. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1148
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ-A No. 19131 of 2023

Prem Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhishe Pandey

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C., Rajiv Sharma

(A) Constitution Of India - Article 226 -
Scope of - does not apply to private
registered societies - which are not
governed by any statute or subject to State
control - Maintainability - The Uttar
Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board
Act, 1960 - The Uttar Pradesh Cooperative. Societies Act, 1965 - U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service
Regulations, 1975 - writ petition is not
maintainable against a private registered
society
(like
Kshetriya
Shri
Gandhi
Ashram) which is not an instrumentality of
the State and does not discharge any public
functions,
in
respect
of
employment
matters governed by its own rules and
regulations (such Khadi Ashram Seva
Niyamawali) - Article 12 - State or
Authority. (Para - 12 to 15)

Petitioner, a Supervisor at Kshetriya Shri Gandhi
Ashram - transferred after filing a complaint
against Ashram - for alleged forgery and misuse
of funds - inquiry was conducted, and bank
accounts were frozen - petitioner faced threats -
eventually dismissed without an inquiry - asked
to vacate official quarters - preliminary objection
- writ petition not maintainable - Khadi Ashram
Seva Niyamawali not a set of statutory rules that
can be enforced by a writ petition.
(Para -1 to
8)

HELD: - Preliminary objection raised by
respondents upheld. No violation of a public duty
or public obligation cast upon Kshetriya Shri
Gandhi Ashram. Writ petition not maintainable
against a private registered society (Kshetriya
Shri
Gandhi
Ashram),
which
is
not
an
instrumentality of the State and does not
discharge any public functions. (Para - 16)

Writ
Petition
Dismissed
as
not
maintainable. ( E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.P. St. Cooperative Land Development Bank
Ltd. Vs Chandra Bhan Dubey & ors., (1999) 1 SCC
741

2. Vijay Bihari Srivastava Vs U.P. Postal Primary
Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2002 (5) AWC 308

3. Air India Statutory Corpn. Vs United Labour
Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1344

4. LIC Vs Escorts Ltd., (1986) 1 SCC 264

5. M.C. Mehta Vs U.O.I., (1987) 1 SCC 395: 1987
SCC (L&S) 37

6. S.S. Rana Vs Registrar, Coop. Societies & anr.,
(2006) 11 SCC 634
5 All. Prem Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1149
7. Suresh Ram Vs St. of U.P., 2005 SCC OnLine
All 727

8. Ram Bachan Singh Vs C.E.O. Khadi Gramodyog
& ors., Writ-A No.52811 of 2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. his writ petition is directed
against an order dated 16.09.2023 passed by
the Secretary, Kshetriya Shri Gandhi
Ashram, Meerut and a further order dated
25.09.2023
passed
by
the
Secretary
aforesaid, requiring the petitioner to vacate
his official quarters.

2. The petitioner was employed as a
Supervisor in the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi
Ashram, Garh Road, Meerut and transferred
to Shri Gandhi Ashram, Khadi Bhandar,
Baraut, District Baghpat vide order dated
04.09.2023,
passed
by
the
Secretary,
Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut. The
petitioner says that he was also the elected
Secretary of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi
Ashram Employees Union, Meerut. It is
averred that the petitioner moved a complaint
dated 08.09.2023 before the Branch Manager
of the Union Bank and the Canara Bank,
where accounts of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi
Ashram, Meerut are maintained, about
execution of a forged sale deed on behalf of
the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut in
favour of one Ranuka Ashiyana Private
Limited, besides misuse of funds by the
Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut. An
inquiry was conducted into the complaint and
operation of the Bank Accounts of the
Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut was
stopped. The petitioner was threatened by the
Secretary of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi
Ashram, Meerut to withdraw his complaint,
upon pain of facing dire consequences.

3. It is the petitioner's case that
bickering arising out of the said complaints
that the petitioner had made, led the
Secretary of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi
Ashram, Meerut to pass the order impugned
dated 16.09.2023, dismissing the petitioner
from service, without holding any inquiry. It
is said that the order is absolutely bad in the
eye of law as it was passed without affording
opportunity of hearing. By the other order
impugned dated 25.09.2023, the petitioner
has been asked to handover possession of
the house allotted to him as an employee of
the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut.
Both these orders have been impugned by
the petitioner by means of the present writ
petition.

4. When the matter came up for
admission before this Court on 22.11.2023,
this Court passed the following order:

"Learned Counsel for the petitioner
will indicate the organizational set up to
show how a writ petition is maintainable
against Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut, which
appears to be a private registered society.
Lay as fresh again on 06.12.2023."

5. On 13.12.2023, this petition was
heard on the question of maintainability,
where learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2
and 3 was also heard. Orders were reserved.

6. Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

7. The petitioner has relied upon the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Khadi and
Village Industries Board Act, 1960 (for
short, 'the Act of 1960') to submit that the
respondent, Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram,
Meerut, discharges statutory duties of a
public character, and, therefore, the present
writ petition is maintainable.
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on the
other hand, submits that the Kshetriya Shri
Gandhi Ashram is a registered society under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is
neither an instrumentality of the State nor in
the exercise of whatever duties it performs,
does it discharge any kind public functions.
The provisions of the Act of 1960 do not
apply. It is also submitted that the Khadi
Ashram Sewa Niyamawali is not at all
statutory in character and are service rules
framed by the private registered society for
its employees. Even if there is violation of
the Sewa Niyamawali or principles of
natural justice, a writ petition would not lie
against a private registered society, unless
the
society
is
discharging
functions
essentially of a public character or there is
any violation of a statute.

9. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner, in support of his contention, has
placed reliance upon the holding of the
Supreme Court in U.P. State Cooperative
Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra
Bhan Dubey and others, (1999) 1 SCC
741, besides the Full Bench of our own
Court in Vijay Bihari Srivastava v. U.P.
Postal Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
2002 (5) AWC 308.

10. No doubt, in Chandra Bhan
Dubey (supra), the Supreme Court does
seem to obliterate the divide between public
duties and private duties or public functions
and private functions for the purpose of
maintainability of a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution and greatly
expanded the scope of the High Court's writ,
where it has been held:

"25. In Air India Statutory Corpn. v.
United Labour Union [(1997) 9 SCC 377 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 1344] this Court speaking
through a Bench of three Judges said: (SCC
pp. 435-36, para 60)
"60. The public law remedy given by
Article 226 of the Constitution is to issue not
only the prerogative writs provided therein but
also any order or direction to enforce any of
the fundamental rights and 'for any other
purpose'. The distinction between public law
and
private
law
remedy
by
judicial
adjudication gradually marginalised and
became obliterated. In LIC v. Escorts Ltd.
[(1986) 1 SCC 264] (SCC at p. 344), this
Court in para 102 had pointed out that the
difficulty will lie in demarcating the frontiers
between the public law domain and the private
law field. The question must be decided in
each case with reference to the particular
action, the activity in which the State or the
instrumentality of the State is engaged when
performing the action, the public law or
private law character of the question and the
host of other relevant circumstances. Therein,
the question was whether the management of
LIC should record reasons for accepting the
purchase of the shares? It was in that factsituation that this Court held that there was no
need to state reasons when the management of
the shareholders by resolution reached the
decision. This Court equally pointed out in
other cases that when the State's power as
economic power and economic entrepreneur
and allocator of economic benefits is subject
to the limitations of fundamental rights, a
private corporation under the functional
control of the State engaged in an activity
hazardous to the health and safety of the
community, is imbued with public interest
which the State ultimately proposes to regulate
exclusively on its industrial policy. It would
also be subject to the same limitations as held
in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1987) 1
SCC 395 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 37]."

11. However, what cannot be lost
sight of is the fact that the observations of
5 All. Prem Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1151
their Lordships, for the maintainability of a
writ petition against any person or authority,
irrespective of whether the action arose
under the public law or private law, were
made in the context of the Uttar Pradesh
Cooperative Land Development Bank, an
entity not only governed by the provisions
of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative. Societies
Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act of 1965'), that
deeply regulates the functions of a
Cooperative Society, but further that
Cooperative Societies, like the Bank under
reference, was subject to statutory control by
the
State
Government.
The
State
Government constituted the Uttar Pradesh
Cooperative Institutional Service Board.
The Service Board, with the approval of the
Governor, framed regulations, called U.P.
Co-operative Societies Employees Service
Regulations,
1975.
The
Board,
last
mentioned, and the Regulations of 1975
would closely protect many of the rights of
employees of Cooperative Societies like the
appellant Bank in Chandra Bhan Dubey. It
was in this context that it was remarked in
paragraph No.25 of the report that the State
Government had control on the appellant,
that was all pervasive and their employees
had statutory protection.

12. The other wider remarks of their
Lordships are to be understood in the
context of the establishment, structure,
statutory
regulation
and
government
control, in case of a Cooperative Society,
functioning under the Act of 1965. The case
of a society, like Shri Gandhi Ashram, is
very different. It is no more than a registered
society, registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The Kshetriya Shri
Gandhi Ashram, Meerut is a regional body.
Its parent body is the Shri Gandhi Ashram,
Lucknow. There is no statute, regulating the
functioning of the society, or providing the
State and its Officers, control over their
affairs. In a later decision, the Supreme
Court, considering the ratio in Chandra
Bhan Dubey regarding the maintainability
of a writ petition against a Cooperative
Society, held in S.S. Rana v. Registrar,
Coop. Societies and another, (2006) 11
SCC 634:

"16. Our attention has also been
drawn
to
U.P.
State
Coop.
Land
Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan
Dubey [(1999) 1 SCC 741 : 1999 SCC
(L&S) 389] wherein the writ petition was
held to be maintainable principally on the
ground that it had been created under an Act.
Reliance has also been placed upon Ram
Sahan Rai v. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak
[(2001) 3 SCC 323 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 584]
wherein again the appellant thus was
recruited in a society constituted under the
U.P. Cooperative Land Development Bank
Act, 1964 and this Court, having examined
different provisions of rules, bye-laws and
regulations, was of the firm opinion that the
State Government exercised all-pervasive
control over the Bank and moreover its
employees were governed by statutory rules,
prescribing an entire gamut of procedure of
initiation of disciplinary proceedings by
framing a set of charges culminating in
inflicting of appropriate punishment, after
complying with the requirements of giving a
show-cause and an opportunity of hearing to
the delinquent.
18. We may notice in some
decisions, some High Courts have held
wherein that a writ petition would be
maintainable against a society if it is
demonstrated that any mandatory provision
of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder,
have been violated by it. (See Bholanath
Roy v. State of W.B. [ (1996) 1 Cal LJ 502]).
19. The Society has not been created
under any statute. It has not been shown
before that in terminating the services of the
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant, the respondent has violated any
mandatory provisions of the Act or the Rules
framed thereunder. In fact, in the writ
petition no such case was made out.

13. The Full Bench of this Court in
Vijay Bihari Srivastava (supra) has
observed:

"35. In the light of foregoing
discussions, we answer question as to
whether a writ petition in the nature of
certiorari will lie against a Co-operative
Society or it comes within the meaning of
the words other Authority occurring in
Article 226 of the Constitution, as follows:
the writ petition in the nature of certiorari
will lie against a Co-operative Society only
when such Society has ingredient of an
authority within the meaning of Article 226
of the Constitution and not otherwise. The
following guidelines are culled out from the
various decisions of the Supreme Court,
referred to above:
1. The constitution of the Managing
Body/
committee
constitutes
the
functionaries of the governed, 2. There is an
existence of deep and pervasive control of
the management and policies of the cooperative Society by the Government, 3.
The function of the Co-operative Society is
of public importance and closely related to
the governmental functions, 4. The financial
control is by the Government or it provides
financial and controlling its affairs, 5. The
violation of statutory rules applicable to the
Society in regard to the service matters of its
employees, and 6. Statutory violations or
non-compliance of it by an authority under
the Act.

36. It is made clear that there is no
straight jacket formula to point out as to
when a Co-operative society is an authority
but it has to be considered in the light of
various factors enumerated in the decisions
of the Supreme Court."

14. The question, whether by its
constitution, the Shri Gandhi Ashram is a
society or body that is amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution in the matter of service
causes of its employees, was examined by
this Court in Suresh Ram v. State of U.P.,
2005 SCC OnLine All 727, where it was
held:

"4. A preliminary objection has been
raised by Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned
Counsel for the respondents that the writ
petition is not maintainable as Shri Gandhi
Ashram Khadi Bhandar has been held not to
be a State by a Division Bench of this Court
in Writ Petition No. 3842 of 1990 (Ram
Jokhan Singh v. Union of India) connected
with Writ Petition No. 8639 of 1990
(Dhirendra Brahmchari v. Union of India).
He has also placed reliance upon the
judgments passed by His Lordship Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Sunil Ambwani in Writ Petition
Nos. 51147 of 2003 (Chhabi Lal v. Union of
India) and 40101 of 2002 (Santosh Kumar
Rastogi v. President, Khadi Gram Udyog
Sangh, Allahabad) as well as on the
judgment passed by his Lordship Hon'ble
Mr. Justice S.K. Singh in Writ Petition No.
11302 of 2003 (Ram Nagina Singh v. U.P.
Khadi
Evam
Gram
Udyog
Board,
Lucknow).
5. The preliminary objection in
those cases was accepted after hearing the
learned Counsel for the parties at length and
it was held that Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi
Bhandar is not a State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution.
6. The respondents have raised a
preliminary objection that in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in The General Manager Kisan
5 All. Prem Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1153
Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan
Nishad, [(2003) 8 SCC 639.] there is no
foundation laid in the writ petition as to how
the respondent-Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti
Ltd., Kharkhaunda No. 2, district Meerut is
an instrumentality of the State as has been
held in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi, [(1981) 1 SCC 722.] and
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India. [(1979) 3 SCC
489.] In the aforesaid case of International
Airport Authority of India (supra), the
following principles have been laid down
which may be a pointer as to whether a cooperative society is a State or other authority
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution or not.
(1) One thing is clear that if the
entire share capital of the corporation is held
by Government, it would go a long way
towards indicating that the corporation is an
instrumentality or agency of Government.
(S.C.C. p. 507, para 14)
(2) Where the financial assistance of
the State is so much as to meet almost entire
expenditure of the corporation, it would
afford some indication of the corporation
being impregnated with governmental
character. (S.C.C. p. 508, para 15)
(3) It may also be a relevant
factor ....... whether the corporation enjoys
monopoly status which is State-conferred or
State-protected. (S.C.C. p. 508, para 15)
(4) Existence of deep and pervasive
State control may afford an indication that
the corporation is a State agency or
instrumentality. (S.C.C. p. 508, para 15)
(5)
If
the
functions
of
the
corporation are of public importance and
closely related to governmental functions, it
would be a relevant factor in classifying the
corporation as an instrumentality or agency
of Government. (S.C.C. p. 509, para 16)
(6) 'Specifically, if a department of
Government is transferred to a corporation,
it would be a strong factor supportive of this
inference' of the corporation being an
instrumentality or agency of Government.
(S.C.C. p. 510, para 18)
7. If on a consideration of these
relevant factors it is found that the
corporation is an instrumentality or agency
of Government, it would, as pointed out in
the International Airport Authority case, be
an 'authority' and, therefore, 'State' within
the meaning of the expression in Article 12."
8. In this case no foundation has
been laid down as to how the respondent is
State or other authority within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution.
9.
The
writ
petition
is
not
maintainable in view of the decision
rendered in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari
Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur v. Satrughan
Nishad, [(2003) 8 SCC 639.] as the
respondent-Mills is not instrumentality or
agency of the State Government within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
10. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner is not State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution."

15. To like effect is the unreported
decision in Ram Bachan Singh v. Chief
Executive Officer Khadi Gramodyog &
Others, Writ-A No.52811 of 2012, decided
on 09.10.2012, where it has been observed:
"Petitioner is an employee of Sri
Gandhi Ashram Ratanpura, Mau Camp
Office Jangipur, Ghazipur. When the matter
has been taken up, preliminary objection has
been raised by Sri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate
that present writ petition is not at all
maintainable. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 40101 of 2002 Santosh Kumar
Rastogi Versus President Khadi Gramodyog
Sangh Allahabad and others has clearly
taken the view that it is a society registered
under Societies Registration Act, 1860, and
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he is not an employee of the U.P. Khadi
Gramodyog Board, and the provisions of
U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act
1960 are not applicable to the petitioner. The
Khadi Ashram Seva Niyamawali is not a set
of statutory rules which can be enforced by
a writ petition. In view of this once services
of petitioner are governed by Khadi Ashram
Seva Niyamawali, writ petition is not
maintainable and petitioner has been
transferred by his employer, then this Court
refuses to interfere with the same."

16. Upon a perusal of the writ
petition, this Court does not find that there is
any such violation of a public duty or public
obligation, cast upon the Kshetriya Shri
Gandhi Ashram, Meerut, as may make it
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

17. In the result, this petition fails
and is dismissed.

18. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1154
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-A No. 20215 of 2019

Ratan Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Kumar, Sri Bharat Pratap Singh,
Sri Gaurav Singh, Sri Prem Narayan Tiwari,
Sri Vijay Gautam (Sr. Advocate), Sri Saurabh
Singh,
Sri
Kripa
Shankar
Singh
(Sr.
Advocate)
Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

(A) Service Law - U.P. Government Servant
(Disciplinary & Appeal), Rules, 1999 - Rules
3 - compulsory retiring - U.P. Financial
Handbook Part II-IV - Fundamental Rules
56(c) - Uttar Pradesh Police Officer
Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal),
Rules 1991 - Rule 14(2) - order of
compulsory retirement is not to be passed
as short cut to avoid departmental enquiry
- order is to be passed after having due
regard to the entire service record of the
officer - an order has to be tested on the
touchstone that no reasonable person
would form requisite opinion on the given
material - order should not smack of
perversity or based on no material or prima
facie malafide . (Para - 24)

(B) Service Law - Principles regarding the
Order of Compulsory retirement in public
interest - (i) Compulsory retirement is not
a punishment and implies no stigma or
misbehavior. (ii) The government must
form
the
opinion
that
compulsory
retirement is in the public interest, based
on subjective satisfaction. (iii) Principles of
natural justice do not apply, but judicial
scrutiny is allowed if the order is: - Mala
fide - Based on no evidence - Arbitrary (no
reasonable person would form the same
opinion)
(iv)
The
government
must
consider
the
entire
service
record,
emphasizing later years, including both
favorable and adverse entries. (v) An order
cannot
be
quashed
solely
because
uncommunicated adverse remarks were
considered;
interference
is
only
permissible on grounds mentioned in (iii).
(Para -23)

State government order - compulsory retirement
order - punishment awarded to petitioner - cast
stigma - quashing of - which awarded petitioner
a major penalty of two increments for 5 years
with temporary effect and a minor penalty of
censure under Rules - also challenges order
passed by Director General of Police - non
speaking order - Only punishment order and
censure entry mentioned - Screening Committee
considered no subjective satisfaction -