# Radha Mohan Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1390 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-27 - **Bench:** Rajan Roy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radha-mohan-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43758 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 1390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 27.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. Service Single No.- 9719 Of 2016 Radha Mohan Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: Mahendra Prakash Raju Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C Service Law - Deputation - Extension - No vested right - Discretion of borrowing department - Writ of mandamus - Not maintainable. U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 - Rules 27 & 27-A - Representation through family member - Direct representation to Chief Minister/Home Minister - Prohibition - Presumption of misconduct - Processing of such representation - Illegality. Constitution of India - Article 309 - Statutory Rules - Binding nature. Constable of Police Department sent on deputation to Trade Tax Department for fixed tenure - Repatriated before completion and thereafter allowed to continue by grace of authorities - On expiry of deputation period, petitioner sought further extension of five years by filing writ petition. Held, a Government servant has no indefeasible or enforceable right to continue on deputation or to seek extension thereof - Deputation is temporary and entirely dependent upon administrative exigencies and discretion of borrowing department - No writ of mandamus can be issued for extension of deputation. Held, Rule 27-A read with Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 clearly prohibits a Government servant from making any representation, either personally or through a member of his family, directly to Government or any authority except through proper channel - Explanation raises presumption that act of wife or family member is at instance of Government servant. Held, representation made by wife of Government servant directly to the Chief Minister/Home Minister seeking extension of deputation is ex facie illegal and not maintainable, being in teeth of Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Held, reliance on paragraphs 315 and 316 of Manual of Government Orders is misconceived - Said provisions relate to petitions/complaints from public or non-government persons and have no application to service matters of Government servants governed by statutory conduct rules. 5 All. Radha Mohan Yadav Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1391 Held, Secretariat of State Government is duty bound to scrutinize and reject such representations at threshold instead of mechanically processing them by calling for reports and recommendations - Statutory Conduct Rules are binding on Government and override executive instructions. Held, directions issued to place order before Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Home) to ensure strict compliance of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 in future. Writ petition dismissed. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.) 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner herein is a Constable in the Police Department. He was sent on deputation to the Trade Tax Department for three years. While five months still remained for completion of his tenure on deputation, he was repatriated to his parent Police Department. A request was made on his behalf to the concerned officials for extension of his deputation for further two years whereupon he was allowed to continue in the borrowing department by the grace of the officers concerned. Now, even on said term having come to an end the petitioner has approached this court seeking a writ of mandamus for continuance of his deputation for further five years. Prior to approaching the court a representation was submitted by his wife directly to the Chief Minister who also happens to the Home Minister dealing with the Police Department requesting for the continuance for two years in the teeth of Rule 27-A of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. 3. Sri K.S. Chauhan, Special Secretary in the Home Department is present in pursuance to the earlier orders of this court dated 5.5.2016 and 25.5.2016 which are quoted hereunder: "5.5.2016: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the letter of Shri Bachhoo Lal in the Home Department of the Government of U.P. Dated 25.01.2016. Let the learned Standing Counsel seek instructions in the matter from the Principal Secretary, Home as to the circumstances under which such a letter was sent to the concerned department asking it to send a recommendation for extension of deputation of the petitioner a Head Constable in the Trade Tax Department as ultimately this is the discretion of the latter department based on its own needs. The instructions shall also be sought as to whether any representation at the behest of the petitioner or on his behalf by his relative could be submitted for such extension of deputation before the Head of the State in view of the Rule 27-A of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. List this case on 24.05.2016 as fresh." 1392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "25.5.2016: Supplementary affidavit filed in court is taken on record. Inspite of order dated 5.5.2016 no instructions have been provided to the learned Standing Counsel, instead four weeks time has been sought in the matter. This court takes exception to such a request being made. Put up this case day-after-tomorrow i.e. on 27.5.2016, when an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary in the Home Department shall appear before the court and submit an explanation in terms of order dated 5.5.2016. Let the original records relating to the case be also produced before the court tomorrow. Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges." 4. Sri Chauhan placed before the court an extract of the Manual of Government Orders page no.79 and placed reliance upon paragraphs 315 and 316(1) thereof, which reads as under: 315- त कव से प्राप्त होने िाली सभी यागचकाओं और लिकायत पत्रों पर यथासंभि तत्परता तथा सहान भूनतपूिवक कायविाही की जानी चादहए। यदद फकसी मामले में उगचत कारणों से फकसी यागचका में की गई प्राथवना को स्िीकार करना अथिा उसमें की गई लिकायत का ननिारण या उसका पररिोधन करना संभि न हो, तो लिकायतकताव को इसकी सूचना विनम्र भािा में दे दी जाए। 316(1)- गैर-सरकारी व्यजक्तयों, संस्थाओं, संगठनों तथा सलमनतयों से प्राप्त होने िाले सभी पत्रों का उत्तर ददया जाए। 5. This was relied to support the action of the Under Secretary in sending the letter dated 25.1.2016 to the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Head Quarters, Allahabad, on receipt of the representation of the petitioner's wife which was sent directly to the Chief Minister who also happened to the be the Home Minister i.e. the Minister of the Department under which the petitioner is functioning, so as to call for a clear report alongwith recommendation within two days. 6. On being confronted with the provision of Rule 27-A read with explanation to Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 Sri Chauhan could not put forth any reasonable answer as to why such a representation directly submitted to the Chief Minister/Home Minister by the wife of a government servant was mechanically sent by the State Government to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) without scrutinizing as to whether such a representation was entertainable and maintainable in the teeth of Rule 27-A read with explanation 5 All. Radha Mohan Yadav Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1393 to Rule 27 of the aforesaid Rules of 1956 which have been made under the proviso under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 7. The reliance placed on extract of the Manual of Government Orders which has been placed before the court by the Special Secretary is misconceived. A bare perusal of the said provisions discloses that these do not apply in the case at hand where the wife of a government servant has directly submitted a representation to the Chief Minister/Home Minister in gross violation of the aforesaid Rules of 1956, that too seeking extension of her husband's deputation in the Trade Tax Department. Paragraph 315 of the Manual of Government Orders refers to petitions and complaints from the public and the requirement to take appropriate actions thereon. This has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. Paragraph 316 refers to letters received from non-government persons, institutions, organizations, unions and committees. By no stretch of imagination the letter/representation by a wife of a government servant falls within the purview of paragraph 316. In fact it is hit by Rule 27A read with Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Rule 27A and 27 are quoted hereinbelow: "27-A. No Government servant shall whether personally or through a member of his family, make any representation to Government or any other authority except through the proper channel and in accordance with such direction as the Government may issue from time to time and explanation to Rule 27 shall apply to this Rule. 27. No Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring whether himself, personally or through a member of his family, any political or other outside influence to bear upon any question relating to his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service. [Explanation.- An act done by the wife or husband, as the case may be, or any member of the family of a Government Servant and falling within the purview of this rule, shall be presumed to have been done at the instance, or with the connivance, of the Government Servant concerned, unless the contrary shall have been proved.]" 9. One can understand this procedure being adopted in matters covered by paragraphs 315 and 316 of the Manual of Government Orders and there can be no two views that such complaints or applications or letters by the public at large or by non-government persons, institutions etc. may be acted upon promptly through concerned departments of the government, when the same are received either from the office of the Chief Minister or the Home Minister or any other Minister, however, what is not acceptable is that a representation submitted by a wife of a government employee directly to the Chief Minister/Home Minister pertaining to a matter relating to his service that too far extension of his deputation should be processed at the level of the Secretariat in the Government in such a manner mechanically asking a report thereon in two days with recommendations thereon, virtually in the teeth of Rule 27-A. Any such processing has to be done keeping in mind the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, and not bereft thereof, 1394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES irrespective of the fact that from where such letter has been received, as, the Rules which have been made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are binding upon the government. In fact the State Government Secretariat ought to have informed the higher echelons about the prohibitions contained in Rule 27-A or it could have rejected the same in view of the said Rule. 10. The petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to remain in the borrowing department at his will and no such writ for extension of his deputation for five years can be issued. 11. Let this order be placed before the Chief Secretary, U.P., as also the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., to ensure that in future U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 are complied to the hilt. 12. For the reasons aforesaid this writ petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 27.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J. U/S 482/378/407 No.- 922 Of 2007 & Connected With Other Cases Tribhuwan Singh & Anr. ...Applicants Versus Union Of India ...Opposite Party Counsel for Applicants: A.P. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party: I.B. Singh, Ms. Shikha Sinha CRIMINAL LAW - NDPS Act - Psychotropic Substance - Schedule 'H' Drugs - NDPS Rules - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Proceedings Psychotropic substance - Schedule I, NDPS Rules - Applicability Buprenorphine Hydrochloride (Bunogesic Injection), though a psychotropic substance within the meaning of the NDPS Act, not being included in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, is not governed by the prohibitions contained in Rules 64 to 67 of the NDPS Rules. Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Prevailing field