# Raj Kumar Sangam v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 148
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-22
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 9054 of 2025
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-sangam-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54347
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
financial loss and for that petitioner was solely responsible. No responsibility was imposed on
earlier Accountants and Higher Authorities. There was no charge that department has suffered
financial loss. There is no finding that due to misconduct petitioner has gained monetary or any
other benefit. Therefore, the Court finds that punishment of Censure and stoppage of one financial
increment with cumulative effect might have proportionate punishment but punishment of recovery
of Rs. 214.87 lacs only from petitioner without any reason and without even a charge to this effect,
the Court is of the view that this punishment is shockingly disproportionate.

20. In view of above, though in normal circumstances matter can be remanded for
consideration afresh but on consideration of above reason, punishment of recovery of a huge
amount, being without any reason or basis, cannot sustain. Accordingly, impugned order dated
02.05.2025, to the extent of recovery of Rs. 214.87 lacs from petitioner, is hereby set aside, without
interfering with other two punishments.

21. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 148
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No. 9054 of 2025

Raj Kumar Sangam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated after an inordinate and unexplained delay of
about ten years; and whether such proceedings could be initiated without any independent
subjective satisfaction, preliminary inquiry or fact-finding exercise by the disciplinary authority
to connect the petitioner with the alleged misconduct.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - r.7 - Civil Service Regulations -
Art.351-A - On the eve of retirement on 30.06.2025, disciplinary proceedings initiated against
petitioner under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 on
allegation that he had forged recovery notice dated 22.10.2016 - Petitioner contended that
alleged incident pertained to year 2015 and proceedings had been initiated after inordinate and
unexplained delay of about ten years - Further contended that at relevant time he was not
posted in District Saharanpur and had neither authority nor occasion to issue alleged recovery
notice - Challenge in writ jurisdiction - Justification:
4 All. Raj Kumar Sangam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
149
Held: On the eve of retirement on 30.06.2025, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
the petitioner under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
on the allegation that he had forged recovery notice dated 22.10.2016 - Court held that the
impugned order had been issued after an inordinate delay of about ten years from the date of
the alleged incident and such extraordinary delay in initiating departmental proceedings had not
been explained at all in the counter affidavit - Unexplained delay in initiation of disciplinary
proceedings makes it virtually impossible for an employee to gather relevant documents and
evidence in his defence - Inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings
can be a ground for quashing such proceedings even at the stage of charge-sheet.
Court further held that no independent subjective satisfaction, preliminary inquiry or fact-finding exercise was
conducted by the disciplinary authority to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner had forged or issued the
alleged recovery notice dated 22.10.2016 - Disciplinary authority had not independently applied its mind nor
recorded any satisfaction to connect the petitioner with the alleged forgery - There was no explanation in the
counter affidavit as to how the petitioner could have issued or fabricated the recovery notice when, he was
not posted in District Saharanpur at the relevant time and was serving elsewhere - Impugned order set aside
- Writ petition allowed - Liberty granted to the petitioner to move representation regarding claim for notional
promotion to the post of Senior Mining Officer.(E-5)
[Paras 6, 7, 8, 9]
CASE LAW CITED
Amresh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693;
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another, AIR 1990 SC 1308;
State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakrishnan, (1998) 4 SCC 154;
Rakesh Kumar Nayak v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 9033 of 2024

List of Acts
Constitution of India;
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999;
Civil Service Regulations
List of Keywords
Disciplinary proceedings; Inordinate delay; Unexplained delay; Charge-sheet; Mining Officer; Forged recovery
notice; Subjective satisfaction; Preliminary inquiry; Fact-finding inquiry; Independent application of mind;
Cogent material; Departmental proceedings; Prejudice to delinquent employee; Post-retiral benefits; Eve of
retirement; Notional promotion.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by respondent no.2 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 read with Article
351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner: Anand Dubey, Saurabh Verma.
Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C.
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)

Heard Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Sandeep Sharma,
learned Standing Counsel.

Challenge in this writ petition

By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 30.06.2025, as
contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no. 2.

Brief Facts of the Case

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Mining
Inspector on 02.03.1993 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Mining Officer on
01.07.1998. While working as Mining Officer in Districts Mainpuri and Kannauj, the petitioner
was transferred to District Saharanpur vide order dated 05.06.2015, and in compliance thereof, he
joined at District Saharanpur.

During his posting at Saharanpur, one Manipal Singh made a complaint to the District
Magistrate, Saharanpur, regarding illegal mining in the Yamuna River in villages Allaharpur and
Panchkuwan, pursuant to which an order dated 05.07.2015 was passed. The District Magistrate,
Saharanpur, vide letter dated 08.07.2015, directed the petitioner to inspect and verify the
genuineness of the complaint on the spot.

In compliance with the said direction, the petitioner conducted an inspection at villages
Allaharpur and Panchkuwan and found that one Ranvir Singh was engaged in illegal mining.
Consequently, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, Police Station
Chilkana, District Saharanpur, for lodging an FIR against the said Ranvir Singh.

In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred from District Saharanpur to District Jalaun vide
order dated 19.05.2016. Thereafter, on 29.09.2016, the petitioner was again transferred from
District Jalaun to District Saharanpur; however, before he could join at Saharanpur, the said
transfer order was cancelled vide order dated 07.10.2016. Both the aforesaid orders are on record as
Annexure-6 and Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

Subsequently, on a complaint made by one Maniram, the District Magistrate passed an order
of recovery dated 22.10.2016, which is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, after attaining the age of
superannuation, retired on 30.06.2025 from the post of Mining Officer in District Azamgarh. On
the eve of his retirement, the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (contained in Annexure-1 to the
writ petition) was passed by opposite party no. 2, whereby disciplinary proceedings have been
4 All. Raj Kumar Sangam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
151
initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999.

It is further submitted that the said proceedings have been initiated in relation to an alleged
incident of the year 2015, i.e., after an inordinate and unexplained delay. While passing the
impugned order, opposite party no. 2 has recorded a finding that the petitioner had forged a
recovery notice dated 22.10.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition).

It is further submitted that no proper inquiry or exercise was conducted by respondent no. 2
before arriving at the conclusion that the alleged recovery notice was forged. The impugned order
has been passed in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without any cogent material on record.

It is also submitted that the impugned action has been taken only with a view to wreak
vengeance against the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ-A No. 8131 of 2024, which
was allowed by this this Court vide order dated 15.4.2025, and while allowing the said writ
petition, certain adverse observations were made against the opposite parties in paragraph 7 of the
judgment. Being aggrieved and annoyed by the said observations, respondent no. 2 has maliciously
initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide impugned order (Annexure-1).

It is, thus, evident that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated with a mala fide
intention to harass the petitioner and to ensure that he is deprived of his rightful post-retiral dues.
As such, the petitioner is being illegally prevented from receiving his post-retiral benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Amresh Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 693 (paragraph 17), wherein it has been held that initiation of disciplinary
proceedings after an inordinate delay, particularly at the verge of retirement or post-retirement, is
liable to be interfered with, especially when no satisfactory explanation for such delay is
forthcoming.

Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ-A No.
9033 of 2024, Rakesh Kumar Nayak vs. State of U.P. and others (paragraphs 18, 19 and 20),
wherein it has been held that belated initiation of disciplinary proceedings and withholding of postretiral dues without due justification is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

Although the impugned order alleges that the petitioner committed forgery while issuing the
recovery notice, the said allegation is wholly misconceived and unsupported by the record. A
perusal of the recovery notice itself clearly demonstrates that the same was not issued by the
petitioner, but by the competent authority.

It is further submitted that, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not posted in
District Saharanpur and, therefore, had neither the authority nor any occasion to issue the alleged
recovery notice addressed to the District Magistrate. In absence of any role, authority, or
connection with the issuance of the said notice, the allegation of forgery levelled against the
petitioner is patently arbitrary and unsustainable.
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

It is further submitted that even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government, there is no specific pleading or averment to the effect that the recovery certificate
dated 22.10.2016 was forged by the petitioner. In absence of any such categorical assertion in the
pleadings, the allegation of forgery levelled against the petitioner is wholly unsubstantiated and
liable to be rejected.

On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, it is contended that there was no occasion or
justification for opposite party no. 2 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in
respect of an alleged incident of the year 2015, particularly on the eve of his retirement on
30.06.2025.

It is submitted that initiation of disciplinary proceedings after an inordinate delay of more than
ten years is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and bad in law. Such belated action has been
consistently deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, especially in cases where no plausible
explanation for the delay is forthcoming.

Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents

Learned Standing Counsel, while rebutting the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner, submits that an FIR bearing No. 587 of 2019 has been registered against the petitioner
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 167 and 120-B IPC, and pursuant thereto, a charge-sheet has
already been filed by the police.

It is further submitted that the petitioner had prepared a forged recovery memo and used the
same for unlawful purposes, and thus, the allegations against him are of grave misconduct,
warranting imposition of a major penalty.

It has also been submitted that a charge-sheet in the departmental proceedings has been duly
served upon the petitioner in March, 2026, wherein five charges have been levelled against him.

Lastly, it is contended that a writ petition challenging the initiation of departmental
proceedings is not maintainable at this stage, and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

Rejoinder Submissions

In reply to the submissions advanced by the learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Amresh Shrivastava vs State of Madhya
Pradesh and others, has categorically held that inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating
departmental proceedings, particularly where the alleged misconduct was within the knowledge of
the department, constitutes a valid ground for interference by the Court even at the stage of
issuance of the charge-sheet.

It is submitted that where the proceedings are vitiated on account of gross delay, mala fide, or
lack of jurisdiction, the writ petition is clearly maintainable, notwithstanding the stage of the
4 All. Raj Kumar Sangam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
153
proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable
is misconceived and liable to be rejected.

On a specific query made by this Court, learned Standing Counsel has fairly admitted that no
independent subjective satisfaction, preliminary inquiry, or fact-finding exercise was conducted by
the disciplinary authority to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner had forged or issued the
alleged recovery notice dated 22.10.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). It has also not been
clarified as to who, in fact, issued or prepared the said recovery notice, which forms the very basis
of the impugned order dated 30.06.2025.

A perusal of the counter affidavit further reveals that there is no specific and categorical denial
or pleading to the effect that the petitioner himself had forged the recovery notice dated
22.10.2016. The stand of the State primarily rests upon the investigation conducted in Case Crime
No. 587 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 167 and 120-B IPC, wherein the Investigating
Officer is stated to have found the charges to be proved and, on that basis, the matter was referred
by the Directorate of Geology and Mining to the State Government, culminating in the initiation of
disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999, read with Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.

However, this Court finds that the disciplinary authority has not independently applied its
mind nor recorded any satisfaction on the basis of cogent material to connect the petitioner with the
alleged forgery. Furthermore, there is no explanation in the counter affidavit as to how the
petitioner could have issued or fabricated the recovery notice when, admittedly, he was not posted
in District Saharanpur at the relevant time and was serving elsewhere, namely in District Jalaun.

Conclusion on Delay and Merits

The issue of inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings is also of significance.
The proceedings have been initiated in the year 2025 in respect of an alleged incident of the year
2015, i.e., after a lapse of about ten years, without any satisfactory explanation.

In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others (supra) has categorically held that inordinate and unexplained delay in
initiating disciplinary proceedings can be a ground for quashing such proceedings even at
the stage of charge-sheet. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment, being relevant, is extracted
below:- "As to the second question, regarding whether delay is a ground for stopping the
departmental proceedings at the stage of the chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this
varies from case to case. However, in the instant case where there is unexplained
inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct
being within the knowledge of the department, but still no departmental proceedings are
initiated, the answer must go in favour of the employee. However, there may be cases
where the department was not even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is
of such a nature that it is indica tive, based on material considerations of factors other than
merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications. In such cases, such a delay, by
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of the process of departmental
proceedings."

A Coordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and another, AIR 1990 SC 1308, as well as State
of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakrishnan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154, has held that in cases
involving inordinate and unexplained delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, prejudice to
the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of the record. It has further been observed that
such delay makes it virtually impossible for the employee to gather relevant documents and
evidence in his defence.

In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was not posted in District
Saharanpur at the time when the alleged recovery notice dated 22.10.2016 (Annexure-10) was
issued; rather, he was posted in District Jalaun. This factual aspect is not in dispute, as fairly
conceded by the learned Standing Counsel.

Further, it is evident that while issuing the impugned order, no subjective satisfaction has been
recorded by the competent authority, nor has any preliminary or fact-finding inquiry been
conducted to arrive at even a prima facie conclusion that it was the petitioner who was involved in
the alleged forgery of the recovery notice dated 22.10.2016.

Coupled with the aforesaid, the impugned order (Annexure-1) has been issued after an
inordinate delay of about ten years from the date of the alleged incident, that too on the eve of the
petitioner's retirement on 30.06.2025. Such extraordinary delay in initiating the departmental
proceedings has not been explained at all in the counter affidavit.

Final order

Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgments and the discussion made herein-above, the writ
petition is allowed and this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated
30.6.2025 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is
hereby set aside.

So far as the second relief prayed for by the petitioner is concerned, it is evident that a specific
pleading has been made in paragraph 22 of the writ petition. However, in the counter affidavit filed
by the State dated 28.11.2025, there is virtually no reply to the averments made in the said
paragraph, and the same remains unrebutted.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move a representation before the competent
authority/opposite parties for consideration of his claim for notional promotion to the post of Senior
Mining Officer, in case his juniors have been promoted to the said post.

In the event such a representation is filed, the competent authority shall consider and decide
the same, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period
of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
4 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur & Ors.
155
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ B No. 5074 of 1987

Shankar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a compromise recorded under Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules,
1954 could be held binding upon tenure holders who were not parties to the compromise and
whose objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were
pending consideration; and Whether a compromise disputed by affected parties and alleged to
have been obtained on blank papers without notice could be sustained in law.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, s.9-A(2), s.11 - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules,
1954 - r.25-A - Petitioners, Shanker and Jagdish, filed objections under Section 9-A(2) claiming
co-tenure rights in disputed holdings - Chunni, father of petitioners along with Pancham and
Ram Ghulam, filed separate objections claiming rights as co-tenure holders and further sought
deletion of the names of Ram Prasad, Ram Dev and Sukh Dev from the record of rights -
Assistant Consolidation Officer recorded a compromise and decided the objections in terms
thereof - Petitioners challenged the compromise on the ground that they were not parties to
such compromise, nor had they any notice of such compromise being reached between one set
of objectors and the opposite parties and hence the direction issued for recording the names of
Ram Prasad, Ram Dev and Sukh Dev as co-tenure holders was illegal - It was further pleaded
that signatures/thumb impressions had been obtained on blank papers on the representation
that the matter would be referred to a higher authority - Gram Pradhan filed an affidavit
disputing the compromise and stating that no compromise had been recorded in his presence -
Appeals and revision dismissed by the consolidation authorities - Challenge in writ jurisdiction -
Justification:

Held: Rule 25-A contemplates that the terms of conciliation shall be reduced into writing in the presence of at
least two members of the Consolidation Committee, shall be read over to the parties concerned and thereafter
their signatures or thumb impressions shall be obtained - No ex parte order or order in default can be passed
by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
Admittedly, there were no signatures or thumb impressions of petitioners, Shanker and Jagdish, on the
compromise document though their objections in respect of the same holdings were pending consideration -
Such compromise could not be binding upon Shanker and Jagdish - Gram Pradhan stated in his affidavit that
the alleged agreement was a forged document and that no compromise terms were read out and explained -
Compromise was not the one as contemplated under Rule 25-A because two petitioners, Shanker and Jagdish,