# Raj Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 550
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-28
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6716 of 2024
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-52569
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law-Pension-Withholding of
Pension under Regulation 351-A of Civil
Service Regulations-Allegation of laxity in
supervision
resulting
in
escape
of
prisoners-Whether
constitute
"grave
misconduct"-Discrimination in punishment
among
similarly
situated
employeesapplicability of precedent-The petitioner, a
retired Jail Superintendent, challenged the
order reducing his pension by 10% for
three years under Regulation 351-A of the
Civil Service Regulations, following an
incident where two prisoners escaped
during his tenure-The charge against him
was of lax control over subordinates-Held,
the Court found that the petitioner had
proactively raised concerns about jail's
condition and was not directly responsible
for the incident-The charge did not
amount to grave misconduct-Further, the
punishment
was
discriminatory
as
similarly situated officers received lighter
penalties-Applying
the
precedent
in
Surendra Pandey, the impugned order was
set aside and full pension with interest
was directed to be paid.(Para 1 to 25)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
3 All. Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Unon of India & Ors.
551
List of Cases cited:

## Text

550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entitlement to revised pension and post
retiral benefits in the above terms shall be
determined by the respondents within a
period
of
eight
weeks
of
the
communication of this order and all arrears
on account of revision of his pension and
post retiral benefits paid to the petitioner
within the said period of time. The
petitioner will be entitled to a revised
monthly pension at the end of eight weeks
of the date of communication of this order
to the respondents. The costs shall be
payable by the State to the petitioner within
the time period of eight weeks indicated
hereinabove and it shall be open to the
State to recover the costs from the Officer,
who passed the impugned order dated
28.01.2021, if they so elect.

31.

Let
this
judgment
be
communicated to the Additional Chief
Secretary, Irrigation & Water Resources
Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow,
the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance,
Government of U.P., Lucknow, the Engineerin-Chief, Irrigation & Water Resources
Department, U.P., Lucknow and the Chief
Engineer (Sharda Sahayak) Ganga Irrigation
Building, Telibagh, U.P., Lucknow through
the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow,
the Chief Engineer (Ganga), Irrigation &
Water Resources Department, Meerut, the
Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Work
Division-I, Irrigation & Water Resources
Department, Meerut, and the Executive
Engineer, Meerut Division, Ganga Canal,
Meerut through the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Meerut, the Executive Engineer,
Muzaffar Nagar Division, Ganga Canal,
District Muzaffar Nagar through the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar and
the Chief Treasury Officer, Baghpat, District
Baghpat through the Civil Judge (Senior
Division),
Baghpat
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 550
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No. 6716 of 2024

Raj Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vikas Singh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Mahendra
Bahadur
Singh,
Palak
Jawa,
S.M.
Singh
Royekwar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Raj Kumar Upadhyaya

A. Service Law-Pension-Withholding of
Pension under Regulation 351-A of Civil
Service Regulations-Allegation of laxity in
supervision
resulting
in
escape
of
prisoners-Whether
constitute
"grave
misconduct"-Discrimination in punishment
among
similarly
situated
employeesapplicability of precedent-The petitioner, a
retired Jail Superintendent, challenged the
order reducing his pension by 10% for
three years under Regulation 351-A of the
Civil Service Regulations, following an
incident where two prisoners escaped
during his tenure-The charge against him
was of lax control over subordinates-Held,
the Court found that the petitioner had
proactively raised concerns about jail's
condition and was not directly responsible
for the incident-The charge did not
amount to grave misconduct-Further, the
punishment
was
discriminatory
as
similarly situated officers received lighter
penalties-Applying
the
precedent
in
Surendra Pandey, the impugned order was
set aside and full pension with interest
was directed to be paid.(Para 1 to 25)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
3 All. Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Unon of India & Ors.
551
List of Cases cited:
1. Surendra Pandey Ex Dy. Jailer Vs St. of U.P.
(2007) 2 ADJ 531

2. UOI & ors. Vs J. Ahmed(1979)AIR SC 1022

3. STRC & anr. Abdul Gafoor (2006) 3 ESC 1985

4. M.M Malhotra Vs UOI & Ors. JT (2005) 9 SC
506

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Akshay Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Anirudh Singh, learned standing counsel
for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri R.K.
Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent
no. 3.

2. Present petition has been filed
with the following prayer:

"(i) Issue a writ direction
or order in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
21.06.2023.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding
the
opposite
parties
to
make
payment of full pension to the
petitioner without any kind of
deduction.
(iii) Issue a writ direction
or order in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties
to grant the benefit of time pay
scale
w.e.f
09.05.2002,
first
promotional
pay
scale
w.e.f.
09.05.2008, third promotional pay
scale (IIIrd ACP) with effect from
09.05.2020 and make payment of
arrears of salary after re-fixation
of pay of the petitioner from due
dates."
3. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner was appointed as Deputy Jailer
by the U.P. Public Service Commissionrespondent No. 3 and joined his services on
09.05.1994. He was promoted to the post of
Jailer vide order dated 17.05.2010 and
thereafter on the post of Jail Superintendent
vide order dated 19.05.2016. Petitioner
submitted his joining at District Etawah on
01.07.2017 as Jail Superintendent. During
the
service
of
petitioner
as
Jail
Superintendent at Etawah, there was
allegation against him that two convicted
prisoners were escaped from the jail and
later on an inquiry was initiated against the
petitioner. Thereafter, charge sheet was
issued on 11.11.2019. The charge sheet is
having
only
one
charge.
Basically
petitioner was charged with allegation that
he has loose control over the subordinate
officers, due to which they are also
reluctant in security measure required in
jail, resulting into fleeing away of two
prisoners. The charge sheet was duly
replied by the petitioner vide reply dated
05.02.2020 denying the charges levelled
against him. Inquiry report was submitted
on 30.07.2020.

4.

The
petitioner
was
superannuated
on
30.11.2021
and
thereafter,
permission
was
taken
as
mandated in Rule 351-A of Civil Service
Regulation(hereinafter,
referred
to
as
'CSR'). Vide order dated 11.01.2022 the
permission for continuance of inquiry was
granted under Rule 351-A of CSR. The
departmental proceeding was concluded
and order dated 11.01.2022 was passed for
deduction of 15 per cent amount from the
pension of the petitioner.

5. Along with petitioner, three
officers, one Jailer and two Deputy Jailers
were also charge sheeted, but they have
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been
given
minor
punishment
of
warning/censure entry.

6. Petitioner has challenged the
impugned
order
No.
1690A/22-1200(12)/2019 dated 11.01.2022 by filing
Writ A No. 3035 of 2022. During the
pendency of the said writ petition, the State
Government has withdrawn impugned
order dated 11.01.2022 vide order dated
25.05.2022 and referred the matter to
respondent No. 3 to take decision in light of
judgment of this Court in the matter of
Surendra Pandey Ex Deputy Jailer Vs.
State of U.P. 2007(2) ADJ 531.

7. The impugned order dated
11.01.2022
was
withdrawn,
therefore,
petition was also allowed vide order dated
19.09.2022. As there was no time bound
direction to respondent No. 3 to pass order,
therefore, petitioner filed Civil Misc.
Review Application Defective No. 76 of
2023, which was disposed of vide order
dated
12.04.2023
with
direction
to
respondent No. 3 to take decision within
six
weeks.
He
next
submitted
that
thereafter,
impugned
order
dated
21.06.2023 has been passed reducing
deduction of pension from 15 per cent to 10
percent for the period of three years. Order
dated
21.06.2023
was
communicated
petitioner
along
with
letter
dated
12.07.2023.

8. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has assailed the impugned order
basically on three grounds.

9. Firstly, he submitted that after
joining on the post of Jail Superintendent,
petitioner
had
written
Letter
No.
1242/ahda-14-2017 dated 20.07.2017 to
DG Jail about the poor condition of Etawah
District Jail with regard to security, but no
action has been taken in this regard.
Therefore, he may not be held responsible
for the alleged incident.

10. Secondly, he submitted that
along with petitioner, one Jailer, namely
Ram Kuber Singh and two Deputy Jailers,
namely Jagdish Prasad and Sibte Hassan
Jafari of District Jail, Etawah were also
found guilty for the same incident, but
Jailer Ram Kuber Singh was given only
warning,
Jagdish
Prasad
was
given
punishment of censure entry, whereas,
Sibte Hassan Jafari was given warning for
working more vigilantly in future. He
firmly pointed out that it is a case of
absolute discrimination with petitioner, as
he was the in-charge of the jail and his duty
was only supervisory in nature, whereas,
other charged employees are directly
responsible for the incident. Therefore, in
case of punishment, they should have been
given more severe punishment than the
petitioner and in the present case other
charged employees have been given very
minor punishment, which may not be even
said to be punishment.

11. He next submitted that as per
provisions of UP Jail Manual, Jailer is
Chief Exclusive Officer of the Jail. He shall
also be responsible for supervision of all
building operations and for looking that all
jail buildings are kept in thorough state of
repair. In district jails, locking and
unlocking of barracks shall be carried out
in the general supervision of Jailer along
with Deputy Jailer, Assistant Jailer and
other officers. He next submitted that it is
very surprising that officers responsible
under the Jail Manual have been given only
minor punishment. He further submitted
that the manner in which the impugned
order has been passed is discriminatory in
nature.
3 All. Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Unon of India & Ors.
553
12. Lastly, he submitted that this
Court vide interim order dated 27.05.2022
passed in Writ A No. No. 3035 of 2022 has
directed to decide the case in light of
judgment of this Court in the matter of
Surendra
Pandey(Supra).
He
firmly
pointed out that case of petitioner is
squarely on same facts as in Surendra
Pandey(Supra) and in that case, this Court
after considering provisions of law has held
that lack of efficiency, foresight and
indecisiveness cannot be said to be
misconduct in terms of Regulation 351A of
CSR and therefore, based upon that, no
punishment
can
be
awarded
and
accordingly set aside the impugned order.

13. Learned Standing Counsel has
vehemently opposed the submission raised
by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that disciplinary proceeding was
initiated under the Rule 7 of the U.P.
Government
Servants(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 against the petitioner
on laxity in discharging his duty and for
having loose control over sub-ordinate
officers and prisoners, but could not dispute
the factual submission and this fact that
identical controversy has been decided by
this Court in the matter of Surendra
Pandey(Supra).

14. I have considered rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

15. The first argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner is about the poor
condition of District Jail, Etawah, for
which he has written several letters from
time to time and there is no denial of this
fact in the counter affidavit, therefore, it is
apparently clear that condition of District
Jail, Etawah was not proper and further,
lesser number of security officers were
posted at there. The CCTV camera was also
not functioning.

16. From the perusal it is also clear
that even after DG, Jail being informed
about the poor condition of the jail by the
petitioner, no action has been taken for
proper safety.

17. Therefore, petitioner cannot be
held responsible for any inaction and laxity
in duty coupled with this fact that he has
written several letters for improvement of
condition of jails, which has not been taken
care of.

18. Now coming to the second
argument of learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding discrimination in punishment given
to petitioner. I have perused the provisions of
UP Jail Manual. From the perusal of the
same, it is apparently clear that main role in
the security of the jail is assigned to other
subordinate
officers
and
the
role
of
Superintendent is only supervisory in nature.
Other charged employees viz. Jailer and
Deputy Jailer are having bigger liability for
execution of orders so issued by the
petitioner. Very surprisingly, in the present
case they have been awarded very lesser
punishment.

19. Therefore, it is also a case of
absolute discrimination with the petitioner.
In all eventuality, petitioner cannot be
awarded higher punishment than other
charged employees.

20. Now the legal issue before the
Court is as to whether lack of supervision
comes within the purview of misconduct or
not in terms of Regulation 351-A of CSR.

21. The very same issue with the
same facts was before this Court in the
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matter of Surendra Pandey(Supra). In that
matter a prisoner fled away from the jail
premises and petitioner was found guilty of
having loose control over his sub-ordinate
employees and as a result of which prisoner
managed to flee away from the jail.
Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgment are being quoted hereinbelw:

"6.
The
order
of
punishment against the petitioner
was passed under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations
and the relevant portion is quoted
below:-
"351-A.
The
Governor
reserves to himself the right of
withholding or withdrawing a
pension or any part of it, whether
permanently or for a specified
period and the right of ordering
the recovery from a pension of the
whole or part of any pecuniary
loss caused to Government, if the
pensioner
is
found
in
departmental
or
judicial
proceedings to have been guilty of
grave misconduct, or to have
caused
pecuniary
loss
to
Government by misconduct or
negligence, during his service,
including service rendered on reemployment
after
retirement.................."
7. Learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently urged that
the petitioner was not at all
responsible for the fleeing away of
the two prisoners and the only
charges that had been levelled
against the petitioner was that he
had
loose
control
over
his
subordinates which resulted in the
said act. This according to him
would not amount to an act of
grave misconduct attracting the
provisions of Article 351-A of the
Civil Service Regulations and in
support of his contention he placed
reliance upon the decisions in
Union of India & Ors. Vs. J.
Ahmed AIR 1979 SC 1022; U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation
& Anr., Vs. Abdul Gafoor 2006 (3)
ESC 1985 and in M.M. Malhotra
Vs. Union of India & Ors,. JT
2005 (9) SC 506.
8.
The
sole
question,
therefore,
that
arises
for
consideration
in
the
present
petition
is
as
to
whether
punishment
could
have
been
imposed upon the petitioner under
the provisions of Regulation 351-A
of the Civil Service Regulations
even if it is to be assumed that the
petitioner was guilty of the charge
of having loose control over his
subordinates as a result of which
two prisoners fled away from the
District Jail Gonda. Regulation
351-A clearly provides that the
Governor reserves to himself the
right
of
withholding
or
withdrawing a pension or any part
of it, whether permanently or for a
specified period and the right of
ordering the recovery from pension,
if the pensioner is found in
departmental
or
judicial
proceedings to have been ''guilty of
grave
misconduct'
during
his
service. The Supreme Court in
Jamil Ahmad (supra) observed that
failure
to
attain
the
highest
expectation of an Officer holding
responsible post or lack of aptitude
of quality of leadership would not
constitute as failure to maintain
devotion to duty because if it is so
3 All. Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Unon of India & Ors.
555
then every Officer rated average
would be guilty of misconduct. In
the said case the charges levelled
against the Officer indicated lack
of efficiency, lack of foresight and
lack of indecisiveness but the
Supreme Court observed that these
deficiencies in personal character
or personal ability would not
constitute
misconduct
for
the
purposes
of
disciplinary
proceedings.
In M.M. Malhotra (supra)
the Supreme Court observed:-
"Misconduct" as stated in
Batt's Law of Master and Servant
(4th Edition) (at page 63) is
"comprised positive acts and not
mere neglects or failures". The
definition of the work as given in
Ballentine's Law Dictionary (148th
Edition) is "A transgression of
some established and definite rule
of action, where no discretion is left
except what necessity may demand,
it is a violation of definite law, a
forbidden act. It differs from
carelessness."
9. In Abdul Gafoor (supra)
a Division Bench of this Court after
noticing the aforesaid decisions
observed
that
the
allegations
against the petitioner that he did
not get the bus in question checked
when it came to the Depot at 10:30
PM did not amount to misconduct
as his inaction or failure of duty
could not be the main cause for the
fire in the bus. In the present case,
the only allegation that has been
levelled against the petitioner is
that he had loose control over his
subordinates as a result of which
two prisoners fled away. The
inquiry report does not indicate
that the petitioner was directly
responsible for the fleeing away of
these
two
prisoners.
The
punishment under Regulation 351A could have been imposed upon
the petitioner only if he was guilty
of grave misconduct. In view of the
aforesaid decisions it cannot be
said that the petitioner was guilty
of grave misconduct. The order
dated 21st June, 2003 cannot,
therefore, be sustained.
10.
The
submissions
advanced by the learned Standing
Counsel that this Court should not
interfere with the quantum of
punishment does not arise for
consideration in the present case
inasmuch as for the act indicated
above punishment could not have
been awarded under Regulation
351-A
of
the
Civil
Service
Regulations. The writ petition,
therefore, succeeds and is allowed.
The order dated 21st June, 2003 is
quashed. The petitioner shall be
paid the balance amount of pension
with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date it was due to
the date of payment."

22. In the present case too, the
petitioner was charged with the allegation
of
having
loose
control
over
the
subordinate
employees
resulting
into
fleeing away of two prisoners, which
cannot
be
said
misconduct
and
no
punishment
can
be
awarded
under
Regulation 351-A of CSR as decided by
this Court in the matter of Surendra
Pandey(Supra).

23. Therefore, in light of facts of
the case as well as ratio of law laid down
by this Court in the matter of Surendra
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pandey(Supra), no punishment can be
awarded
to
petitioner.
Accordingly,
impugned order dated 21.06.2023 cannot
be sustained and is hereby set aside.

24. It is directed that petitioner shall
be paid the entire deducted amount of
pension along with interest @ 9 % from the
due date to the date of actual payment.

25. Writ petition is allowed with all
consequential benefits. No order as to costs.

26. So far as Prayer No. (iii) is
concerned, petitioner is given liberty to file
representation before respondent No. 1 within
two weeks along with certified copy of this
order. In case any such representation is filed,
respondent No. 1 is directed to consider and
decide the same in accordance with law,
maximum within a period of eight weeks
thereafter.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 556
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 7114 of 2023

Rajnish Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Sri Shrawan Kumar
Tripathi, Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Kunal Ravi Singh

Service Law - Regularization - University
Teachers - Appointment Without Regular
Selection - U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 - Sections 2(19) & 31(3)(c) [as
substituted by U.P. Act 23 of 2004] -
Allahabad University Act, 2005 - Sections
3(u), 3(w), 29, 31 & 45 - University
Statute - Clauses 15(2) & 15(7)(iv) -
Petitioner was initially appointed as a
Research Fellow (JRF/SRF) in 1992. He
sought to be treated as a part-time
teacher under para 10.02 of the Statute.
He sought regularisation under Clause
15(7)(iv) of the University Statute framed
under the Central Act. Held: Clause 15(2)
of the Statute lays down the mandatory
composition of the Selection Committee
for appointment to the post of Lecturer,
which must include: Dean of Faculty, Head
of Department, and three subject experts
appointed by the Executive Council from a
panel recommended by the Academic
Council. The Selection Committee that
considered the petitioner's case did not
conform to the prescribed composition
and thus could not be treated as a regular
Selection Committee under Clause 15(2).
Consequently, the benefit under Clause
15(7)(iv)-which
permits
permanent
appointment without further reference to
a Selection Committee-could not be
extended to the petitioner. The Court held
that the essential conditions under Clause
15(7)(iv) were not satisfied, and hence,
the petitioner's claim for regularisation
stood rejected. (Paras 26, 31)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh
Kumar
Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh,
learned counsel for respondents- 2 to 6.

2. Petitioner has not disclosed in
specific words that how he entered in
Allahabad University i.e. he has not
disclosed specifically that he was initially