# Rajesh Singh v. Board of Governers, M.N.N.I.T & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 1061
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 19080 of 2006
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-singh-v-board-of-governers-m-n-n-i-t-anr-52787
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. Board of Governers, M.N.N.I.T. & Anr.
1061
appointment on compassionate ground was
rejected on the ground that order passed by
this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar
(supra)
and
the
Office
order
dated
22.08.2025 issued by the Secretary, U.P.
Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. For the
reasons best known to the petitioners, they
have not challenged the Office order dated
22.08.2025 issued by the Secretary, U.P.
Basic Education Board, Prayagraj in the
present petition. Insofar as the claim of the
petitioners that some persons have been
granted appointment on the post of
Assistant
Teachers
on
compassionate
ground is concerned, it has already been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated
above that in case any wrong or contrary
order has been passed by the authority,
such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be
made the basis of issuing a writ compelling
the respondent-authority to repeat the
illegality or to pass another unwarranted
order.

12. In this view of the matter, petition
lacks merits and the same is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1061
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 19080 of 2006

Rajesh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Governers, M.N.N.I.T & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(i)
Whether
the
disciplinary
proceedings
culminating in the order dated 28.02.2006
dismissing the petitioner from service were
vitiated for non-compliance with the procedure
prescribed in the Resolution adopted by the
Board of Governors on 04.05.2004; and
(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal with
disqualification, imposed on the ground of
immoral conduct arising out of a consensual
relationship between a teacher and his student,
was disproportionate.

Headnotes
Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings -
Procedure prescribed by Resolution dated
04.05.2004
-
One
Man
Inquiry
Commission
-
Natural
justice
-
Consensual relationship - Teacher and
student
-
Standard
of
morality
-
Disproportionate punishment - Matter
remanded on quantum of punishment.

Held:

The Resolution adopted by the Board of
Governors on 04.05.2004 prescribes a detailed
procedure
for
conducting
disciplinary
proceedings, including issuance of charge-sheet,
statement of imputations, list of witnesses and
documents, appointment of Inquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer, and adherence to principles
of natural justice. Admittedly, such procedure
was not followed in the present case and no
charge-sheet in terms thereof was issued.
[Paras 13-14]

The disciplinary action was based on a report of
a One Man Inquiry Commission headed by a
former Judge of this Court. Though the detailed
procedure prescribed in the Resolution was not
followed, the petitioner had appeared before the
Commission, submitted reply, and substantially
admitted the relationship with the complainant.
In the facts of the case, it was held that nonfollowing of the detailed procedure did not
cause such prejudice to the petitioner so as to
vitiate the findings of misconduct. [Paras 15-16]

The relationship between the petitioner, a
Lecturer, and the complainant, a student,
though consensual and continued even after she
left the Institution for about three years, was
found by the Commission to be immoral and
contrary to the expected standard of conduct of
a teacher. [Paras 4, 15]
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
However, the Court noted that it was not a case
of sexual harassment; the complainant had not
lodged
any
FIR;
the
relationship
was
consensual; and except the said allegation,
there was no other complaint against the
petitioner.
The
termination
was
founded
essentially on the ground of morality. [Paras 1721]

In view of the circumstances, the punishment of
dismissal from service with disqualification was
held to be shockingly disproportionate. While
upholding the finding of misconduct, the Court
interfered only with the quantum of punishment
and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority to pass a fresh order on punishment in
light of the observations made. [Paras 20-23]

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
[Para 24] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Avinath Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti and others, (1997) 2 SCC 534 -
referred to; Allahabad Bank and others v.
Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 -
referred to; State of Tamil Nadu v. Pramod
Kumar and others, (2018) 17 SCC 677 -
referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
State Universities Act, 1973; First Statutes, 1976
of the University of Allahabad.

List of Keywords
Disciplinary proceedings; One Man Inquiry
Commission;
Natural
justice;
Consensual
relationship; Teacher and student; Immoral
conduct; Disproportionate punishment; Remand
on quantum.

Case Arising From
Order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the
Director, Motilal Nehru National Institute of
Technology, Allahabad, dismissing the petitioner
from service with disqualification.

Appearance for Parties
For
the
Petitioner:
Sri
Abhishek
Srivastava.
For the Respondents: Sri Shivendu Ojha,
C.S.C.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioner was a Lecturer in the
Department of Computer Science and
Engineering in Motilal Nehru National
Institute of Technology, Allahabad. He
joined the Institute on 31.03.1999. An Exstudent (Girl) of Institute made a written
complaint dated 08.01.2003 addressed to
the Director of Institute inter alia alleging
therein that when she was a student of
Master of Computer Education in the
Institute from 1997-2000, petitioner has
made physical relationship with her and she
described an occurrence took place on
16.11.1999 that it was against her will.
Though she further stated that later on they
had consensual physical relationship even
after she left the Institute. A symbolic
marriage was also took place between them
but it appears that she being of a different
religion, therefore, parents of petitioner did
not allow to solemnize a proper marriage
and thus their relationship was broken,
therefore, she made a complaint that she
was subjected to physical and emotional
harassment.

2. On basis of said complaint, Director
of Institute constituted a Five Members
Committee and a show cause notice dated
10.01.2003 was issued to petitioner to
submit reply to the complaint. A copy of
complaint was admittedly served upon
petitioner.
A
questionnaire
was
also
submitted to petitioner. Petitioner thereafter
submitted his reply that complainant was
an student of petitioner between July, 1999
to June, 2000 and he admitted that it was a
consensual relationship which developed
during that period and continued even
thereafter. They wanted to marry but due to
different religion marriage could not take
place.
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. Board of Governers, M.N.N.I.T. & Anr.
1063

3. On basis of record it appears that
the Five Members Committee has not
arrived to any conclusion and submitted a
report that they do not have expertise to
establish a fact that any rape was
committed
and
that
petitioner
and
complainant were in relationship even after
complainant left the Institute and complaint
was filed only when petitioner was engaged
with some other girl in November, 2002.
No specific conclusion was made in the
report.

4. On basis of above inquiry petitioner
was put under suspension vide order dated
17.01.2003 and there was an observation in
said order that a charge sheet will be issued
shortly. Subsequently, a One Man Inquiry
Commission was constituted by Institute
headed by Justice N.L. Ganguly, Former
Judge, Allahabad High Court, who issued
notice dated 10.06.2003 to petitioner and
sought reply and that petitioner can
produce any evidence, oral or documentary.
Petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed
reply on 12.09.2003 and has appeared
before One Man Inquiry Commission also.
Complainant has also made a written
statement
before
One
Man
Inquiry
Commission.
The
Commission
also
recorded statements of few witnesses as
well as took note of observations made by
Five
Members
Committee.
The
Commission also framed certain issues for
consideration and finally submitted a report
dated 27.12.2023 whereby petitioner was
found guilty of misconduct on ground that
he
has
shown
special
favour
with
complainant, when she was a student in the
Institute and his conduct as a Lecturer of
Institute and having affair with his student
was contrary to the tenets of relationship of
student and Teacher. His act of physical
relationship
with
his
student
was
considered to be an immoral conduct and it
was found to be contrary to the values of a
Teacher in society and according to Section
49-A of the State Universities Act, 1973
and Clause 16.04 of the First Statutes, 1976
of University of Allahabad it was proposed
that petitioner be terminated from services.
For reference relevant part of One Man
Commission's
report
is
reproduced
hereinafter:

"I have considered the facts and
circumstances in great details and I find
that Mr. Rajesh Singh is guilty of
misconduct on the ground that he had
shown special favour with Ms. Valentina
Kujur when she was student in the institute.
He had shown special favour to her by
giving her special lessons for home work
and would question on the said subject on
the following day which act was an act of
special favour shown by him to Ms.
Valentina. This was not done in case of any
other girl student or boy student. The
conduct of Mr. Rajesh Singh as a Lecturer
of the college and having affairs with Ms.
Valentina Kujur when she was student of
the college itself, calling her to participate
in birth-day celebration in the Hotel Kanha
Shyam shows and fortifies the findings
recorded against him. Mr. Rajesh Singh,
when Ms. Valentina Kujur was his student
and was in the college, was photographed
in the residential room in such a pose
which is not proper for the teacher with his
own girl student. I have already discussed
above that Mr. Rajesh Singh was standing
behind the chair on which Ms. Valentina
Kujur was sitting and he was leaning on
the shoulders of Ms. Valentina Kujur
putting both his hands on upper portion of
her breast and she was holding his wrist.
This cannot be imagined to be a proper
pose with a girl student by his teacher. The
sexual act continued from February till
May 1999, as stated by Ms. Valentina
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kujur. This act committed by Mr. Rajesh
Singh is immoral conduct and in no manner
can be excused. Even after Ms. Valentina
Kujur ceased to be the student of Mr.
Rajesh Singh, he continued having sex
relationship with her, taking her to Hotels
at Agra stayed there for two days and five
days at Khajuraho are such facts which
show that Mr. Rajesh Singh had lost all
moral values of Indian culture which is
never expected from a teacher. In our
country teachers are worshipped and their
place is at high pedestal गुरूर ब्रह्मा, गुरूर कर्ष्णु,
गुरूर िेर्ो महेश्वरा ।

After considering the facts and
circumstances in detail, I have no option
left to record the finding that Mr. Rajesh
Singh committed gross misconduct and
according to Section 49-D of the State
University Act, 1973 and Clause 16.04
of the First Statutes, 1976 of the
University of Allahabad deserves to be
terminated from the services. If such a
teacher is permitted to continue in an
educational institute of repute like
MNNIT where girl students from various
parts of the country come to study, there
is no guarantee that he will not repeat
his actions again.

I
suggest
that
proper
punishment would be termination from
service so that he may be able to do other
job in places other than educational
institutions. The suspension allowance
already paid may not be recovered back
from him, but he shall not be entitled for
any further emoluments.

The report of the Commission is
submitted before the Chairman of the
Board of Governors of MNNIT, Allahabad
for his consideration and for consideration
by the Board of Governors."

5. A copy of aforesaid report was
served upon petitioner who submitted his
reply on 23.06.2004 that the report be set
aside. The report and petitioner's reply was
considered by Board of Governors in their
5th Meeting held on 18.01.2005 and
accordingly a notice dated 22.02.2005 was
issued to petitioner. Petitioner thereafter
submitted his reply dated 05.03.2005 and
subsequently
impugned
order
dated
28.02.2006 was passed by Director of
Institute whereby petitioner was dismissed
from service with disqualification.

6.
The
aforesaid
order
dated
28.02.2006 is impugned in present writ
petition.

7. This writ petition was filed in the
year 2006 wherein no interim order was
passed. Later on it was dismissed for want
of prosecution on 11.07.2013 and restored
vide order dated 26.07.2023.

8. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned
counsel for petitioner has argued that
service conditions of an employee of
MLNIT is governed by a resolution
adopted by Board of Governors in its 4th
Meeting
held
on
04.05.2004
which
provides procedure for disciplinary action,
penalties and appeal also and for reference
the same are reproduced hereinafter:

"8. Procedure for Imposing
Penalties

The
procedure
for
imposing
penalties listed in Para 3 shall be as under:

(i) No order imposing on any
member of the staff any of the penalties
specified at (iv) to (vii) above shall be
passed by any authority subordinate to that
by which he was appointed and except after
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. Board of Governers, M.N.N.I.T. & Anr.
1065
an enquiry has been held and the member
of the staff has been given reasonable
opportunity of showing cause of the action
proposed to be taken in regard to him.

No order
imposing
on any
member of the staff any of the penalties
specified at (i) to (iii) above shall be passed
by any authority subordinate to that by
which he was appointed and unless the
member of the staff concerned has been
given
an
opportunity
to
make
a
representation to the Appointing Authority.

Notwithstanding
the
above
provisions, it shall not be necessary to to
follow the procedure mentioned above in
the following cases:

(a)
where
an
employee
is
dismissed or removed or reduced in rank
on the ground of conduct which has led to
his conviction on a criminal charge;

(b)
where
the
authority
empowered to dismiss or remove the
person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied
that, for some reason to be recorded by that
authority in writing, it is not reasonably
practicable
to
give
that
person
an
opportunity of showing cause; or

If any question arises whether it
is reasonably practicable to give any
person an opportunity of showing cause
under clause (b) above, the decision
thereon of the authority empowered to
dismiss or remove such person or to reduce
him in rank, as the case may be, shall be
final.

(ii) Formal penalties must be
recorded in the Service Book of the
employee and a copy kept along with
his/her
Confidential
Reports.
Other
punishments need not be recorded, except
that a Warning given after disciplinary
proceedings should be recorded.

(iii) In case of an officer on
deputation, the borrowing authority may
start proceedings but the lending authority
should be informed and vice-versa. If at the
conclusion of the proceedings started by
him, the borrowing authority is of the view
that a major penalty should be imposed on
the delinquent official, the borrowing
authority should replace his/her services at
the disposal of the lending authority and
transmit the record of the proceedings to
the lending authority. The borrowing
authority can impose a penalty on the
delinquent officer but if this is not agreed
to by the lending authority, then his
services shall be replaced at the disposal of
the lending authority.

(iv) A Flow Chart of various steps
after receiving a complaint is given as
under:

9.
Acts,
Conduct
And
Commissions/Omissions Which Amount
To Misconduct Leading To Disciplinary
Action

The employees of the Institute
shall be governed by the Conduct Rules as
laid down in Schedule 'B' and any violation
of these rules may lead to disciplinary
action.

I. The initiation of disciplinary
proceedings for various penalties depends
on the gravity of derelictions to be judged
by the Disciplinary Authority.

II. Generally, for minor penalty
proceedings at Serial (i) to (iii), could be
dereliction of duty such as inefficiency or
1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incompetence
disobeyance
of
orders
habitual late coming or minor violation of
conduct rules constitute the basis.

III. Cases which may generally
mere action of imposing one of the Major
penalty at Serials (iv) to (vii) are,

1. Where there is a reasonable
ground to believe that a penal offence has
been committed by the employee but the
evidence forthcoming is not sufficient for
prosecution in a court of law, e.g.

a) possession of disproportionate
assets;

b) obtaining or attempting to
obtain illegal gratification;

c)
misappropriation
of
Government properly, money to stores;

d) obtaining or attempting to
obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage without consideration or for a
consideration which is not adequate.

2.
Falsification
of
Government/Institute records.

3.
Gross
irregularity
or
negligence in the discharge of official
duties with a dishonest motive.

4. Misuse of official position or
power for personal gain.

5.
Disclosure
of
secret
or
confidential information even though it
does not fall straightly within the scope of
the Official Secrets Act.

6. False claims on the Institute
like TA, Reimbursement etc.

7. Sexual harassment

10. Principles of Natural Justice

The principles of natural justice
have been evolved through various judicial
pronouncements and are intended to
provide the minimum protection to an
individual against any arbitrary procedure
that may be adopted by the authorities in
departmental inquiries. These principles
require:

(a) That every person against
whom
disciplinary
proceedings
are
contemplated must have a reasonable
notice of the case he has to meet;

(b)
That
he
must
have
a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in
his defence;

(c) That the hearing must be
conducted by an impartial, unbiased
officer(s) that is, a person who is neither
directly nor indirectly a party to the case or
has an interest in it.

(d) That the disciplinary authority
must act in good faith and not arbitrarily
but reasonably

The
reasonable
opportunity
mentioned at (b) above includes:

(i) An opportunity to the person
concerned to deny his guilt and establish
his innocence. He will get an opportunity if
he is told clearly what the charges leveled
against him are and the allegations on
which such charges are based.

(ii) An opportunity to defend
himself by cross-examining the witnesses
produced against him and by examining
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. Board of Governers, M.N.N.I.T. & Anr.
1067
himself and any other witnesses in support
of his defence; and,

(iii) An opportune to make his
representation as to why the punishment
should not be inflicted on him. This
opportunity can be provided only if the
competent authority after applying its mind
to the gravity or otherwise of the charges
against
him
proposes
to
inflict
the
appropriate penalty out of the list of
penalties provided for in the rules relating
to such disciplinary matters.

For
unbiased
hearings
mentioned at (c) above, the Inquiry
Officer should not obviously have any
personal interest in the case. During
hearings, he is expected to be serene and
even-handed, even though his patience at
times may be tried. At the same time, he
cannot permit either party to engage in
every trick to delay proceedings and put
a spoke the wheel of justice.

11. Proceedings for Inquiry

The flow chart of various steps in
the conduct of an enquiry and award of a
punishment after receiving a complaint is
given at Annexure 1 and the guidelines as
as under:

(a) The proceedings commence
with the issue of a charge-sheet to the
delinquent
official.
The
charge-sheet
should contain facts and circumstances
serving as the basis for the charge so that
the
delinquent
official
may
have
a
reasonable opportunity to known fully what
the charges levelled against him are and
what the background is, so that he may be
in a position to answer the charges and
prepare
himself
in
the
departmental
inquiry.

The charge-sheet to be issued to
the delinquent official should include the
following:

(i) a statement of charges

(ii) a statement of imputation of
misconduct/misbehaviour leading to a
distinct charge

(iii) a list of witnesses and a list
of documents in support of charges and

(iv) a memorandum requiring the
delinquent official to submit a reply within
a reasonable time (say 10 days from the
date of receipt) asking him to state whether
he pleads guilty and whether he wishes to
be heard in person

(b)
After
receiving
the
explanation from the delinquent official,
the disciplinary authority may appoint an
impartial officer to hold the inquiry on his
behalf.

(c) When the Inquiry Officer is
appointed, the disciplinary authority should
simultaneously
appoint
a
Presenting
Officer. It should not be difficult to except
in very complex cases for the disciplinary
authority to appoint a staff member from
the Institute, conversant with the case other
than the one who has carried out a
preliminary inquiry into it. The Presenting
Officer is to conduct the proceedings on
behalf of the Institute before the Inquiry
Officer. He will lead evidence in support of
the
charges
and
cross-examine
the
witnesses deposing on behalf of the
delinquent official.

The delinquent official may be
allowed to have a staff member of the
institute as Defence Assistant. Refusal to
1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
engage
a
Lawyer/Advocate
to
the
delinquent official does not amount to
denial
of
reasonable
opportunity
or
violation of the natural justice. If however
the disciplinary authority appoints a legal
practitioner as a Presenting Officer, it is
only appropriate that the delinquent official
should be informed and also allowed to
engage a legal practitioner.

(d) The departmental inquiry
should be commenced with an advance
notice to the delinquent official intimating
him the date, time and place of inquiry and
calling upon him to appear before the
Inquiry Officer together with his witnesses,
if any. A list of witnesses to be examined
for the Institute should be furnished to the
delinquent official in advance.

(e) On the first day of inquiry if
the delinquent official who is served with
the notice of the inquiry is absent, the
inquiry officer may give him another
opportunity
to
appear
instead
of
proceeding with the inquiry.

(f) When the delinquent official
appears with reference to the notice of
hearing, the Inquiry Officer should read the
charges in the presence of the delinquent
official and say these charges have bee
levelled against him on the evidence of
certain persons and documents, if any.

(g) The witnesses on behalf of the
disciplinary authority should be examined
in the presence of the delinquent official
and the evidence taken and recorded in his
presence. The strict provisions of the
Evidence Act however do not apply to such
domestic inquiries. The delinquent official
should be called upon to cross examine the
witnesses and the Inquiry Officer should
record the statements made by them on
such cross examinations in the presence of
the delinquent official.

(h) The Inquiry Officer may take
the signatures of the delinquent official on
each day's proceedings and if he refuses to
sign, such refusal may be noted by the
Inquiry Officer in the proceedings.

(i) After the Institute closes its
side, the delinquent official should be given
a reasonable opportunity to produce his
witnesses to give evidence of his side. He
and his witnesses may be cross-examined
by the Presiding Office. If the delinquent
official says that he has no evidence to
offer or he fails to appear before the
Inquiry Officer or protects the proceedings
inspite of reasonable opportunities to
produce his evidence, the Inquiry Officer
should record it in the proceedings and he
may then close the case. The Inquiry
Officer should then obtain a brief from the
Presenting Officer as well as from the
Defence Assistant/Delinquent Employee.

(j) The Inquiry Officer may also
take the signature or each witness to the
evidence recorded by him. This equally
applies to the evidence of the delinquent
official.

(k) The Inquiry Officer should
then draw to the report and forward it to
the disciplinary authority. This should
contain a brief resume of the charges
framed against the delinquent official, the
explanation of the delinquent official, the
substance of the evidence of witnesses
examined during the inquiry and the
documentary evidence placed on record. It
should also set out the conclusions on the
charges, supported by the evidence placed
on record. He should conclude which of
thye imputations/ charges are proved. In
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. Board of Governers, M.N.N.I.T. & Anr.
1069
case a particular charge, as such is not
established, but part of the allegation
referred
to
it
in
the
statement
of
imputations is established, the Inquiry
Officer should specifically bring this point
out. The Inquiry Officer should forward
along with his report all the record and the
proceedings of the Inquiry."

9. Learned counsel by referring the
above referred procedure has submitted that
there is no provision to constitute a One
Man Inquiry Commission and its report
could only be a supporting document and
could not be a basis to take action against
petitioner. No charge sheet was issued to
petitioner. No oral evidence was recorded.
Petitioner was not granted any opportunity
to cross-examine complainant or witnesses.
A detail procedure is prescribed for inquiry
but not followed. Therefore, the order of
removal from service based on a report of
One Man Inquiry Commission is illegal.

10. Learned counsel further submitted
that there is no explanation that once
complainant has left the Institute and
according to her case she remained in
relationship with petitioner so much as that
they perform a symbolic marriage and this
relationship goes for about three years,
even after she left the Institute, then such a
belated complaint cannot be formed basis
to a report of Inquiry Commission. Moreso
it was filed only when the marriage was not
solemnized and petitioner was got engaged
with another girl. In support of his
submissions,
learned
counsel
placed
reliance on judgments passed by Supreme
Court in Avinath Nagra vs. Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti and others (1997)2
SCC 534; Allahabad Bank and others vs.
Deepak Kumar Bhola (1997)4 SCC 1;
and, State of Tamil Nadu vs. Pramod
Kumar and others (2018)17 SCC 677.

11. Per contra, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu
Ojha, learned counsel for respondents, has
submitted that petitioner was not prejudice
since he has opportunity to place his case
which he availed also. The contents of
complaint are substantially accepted by
petitioner. Being a Teacher petitioner has to
preserve a higher standard of morality
which he fails to do. Admittedly he made
physical relationship with his student
probably on ground to give her benefit and
even after she left the Institute, he remained
in relationship and failed to marry her.
Such relationship between a Teacher and
his student is contrary to the basic tenets of
Guru Shishya Parampara and such a
Teacher cannot be allowed to serve in a
Institute, which has a high reputation.

12. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material on record.

13. In the present case, it not in
dispute
that
disciplinary
proceedings
against petitioner was not undertaken in
terms of procedure prescribed in a
resolution adopted by Board of Governors
in its 4th Meeting held on 04.05.2004,
which is referred in detail in earlier
paragraphs. Said procedure prescribes that
principles of natural justice are to be
followed. There is a very detail procedure
for
inquiry
which
commenced
with
issuance of charge sheet to delinquent
official, a statement of charges, a statement
of imputation of misconduct, a list of
witnesses and a list of documents in
support of charges and a memorandum
requiring the delinquent official to submit a
reply within a reasonable time etc. An
Inquiry Officer was requested to be
appointed to conduct an inquiry. A
Presenting Officer was also required to be
appointed. A detail procedure has also
1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further provided and admittedly in the
present case since no Inquiry Officer was
appointed, therefore, further procedure as
prescribed was also not followed.

14. Now the question is, whether a
One Man Inquiry Commission can bye pass
the
detail
procedure
prescribed
for
conducting a disciplinary proceeding. It is
no doubt that the One Man Inquiry
Commission was headed by a Former
Judge of this Court wherein petitioner and
complainant appeared and recorded their
respective statements.

15. The Commission has recorded
statements
of
independent
witnesses.
Though
no
cross-examination
was
conducted but on basis of material
available
before
One
Man
Inquiry
Commission, essentially on a ground that
petitioner has accepted his relationship with
victim even after she left the Institution and
it was found that petitioner has conducted a
misconduct. Essence of order passed by
One Man Inquiry Commission was based
on standard of morality of a Teacher,
relationship between a Teacher and student
as well as that a Teacher has to keep
morality at a very high pedestal and that if
petitioner was allowed to work in the
Institution, he might have repeated such
act.

16. Court finds that since petitioner
has substantially accepted the allegations
made by complainant, therefore, only on
ground that a detail proceeding in terms of
above
referred
resolution,
was
not
conducted and an inquiry was conducted by
One Man Inquiry Commission would not
prejudice him so much as that allegation is
concerned. Petitioner has accepted that he
had relationship with complainant (a
student) for few months which continued
even after she left the Institution and they
wanted to marry but it could not happen
since they belong to different religion.
Therefore, it is not a case where the
petitioner is prejudice or if inquiry was
conducted as per the procedure, outcome of
inquiry report would be different.

17. Now the Court proceed to discuss
and
consider,
whether
in
such
circumstances when the complainant was a
willing partner in the relationship and
though it commenced when she was a
student of petitioner and continued even
after she left the Institution for three years,
therefore, after such a lapse of time,
specifically
when
marriage
was
not
solemnized, whether such a complaint and
admit nature of relationship, could invite a
major penalty to petitioner. Admittedly the
complainant has not lodged any FIR
against the petitioner.

18. On basis of material on record
maximum it may be a case of false promise
of marriage but to contend by complainant
that she was forced to enter into physical
relationship about three and half years ago
even though she remained in relationship
with petitioner for more than three years
does not inspire confidence.

19. There is one more factor also that
in present case, complaint was filed by an
Ex-student after three years, she left the
Institution and after being in relationship
with petitioner for these three years that
whether such a complaint could be
cognizable specifically in absence of any
FIR lodged by complainant.

20. In aforesaid circumstances, the
Court finds that on basis of material on
record, as referred above, the only reason to
terminate the petitioner from service with
12 All. Nahni & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1071
disqualification
is
'morality',
i.e.,
a
standard of morality is required to be
maintained by a Teacher with their
students. No doubt the petitioner has not
followed or kept high standard of morality
but there is another factor that except the
said allegation there is no other allegation
against petitioner despite he was doing job
for almost three years before the order of
termination was passed. In case petitioner
got married with complainant after their
relationship of three years, possibly no
complaint was filed. Therefore, Court finds
that morality has to be judged on further
conduct of petitioner also and since there is
no other complaint placed on record,
therefore, the Court finds that punishment
is shockingly disproportionate.

21. It is not a case of sexual
harassment, rather admittedly it is a case of
consensual relationship which continued
even after the
complainant left the
Institution for almost three years, therefore,
it may not be a case of major punishment
prescribed at Serial Nos. (iv) to (vii) of
Para 3 of Administrative Orders and
alternatively some minor punishment may
be imposed.

22. The Court further takes note that
major penalties are defined at Serial Nos. 4
to 6 of Clause 9 of the Resolution. Para 3 of
Administrative Orders under the heading of
"Disciplinary
Action,
Penalties
and
Appeal" provides major penalties at Serial
Nos. (iv) to (vii), i.e., reduction to lower
service, grade or post or to lower time scale
or to a lower stage in a time scale;
compulsory
retirement;
removal
from
service which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment in the Institution;
and, dismissal from service which shall
ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment in the Institute as well as
minor penalties are prescribed at Serial
Nos. (i) to (iii) of same Para, i.e., censure;
withholding of increments or promotion;
and, recovery from whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to the Institution by
negligence or breach of orders.

23. In view of above, impugned order
dated 28.02.2006 is interfered qua to
quantum of punishment and matter is
remitted to Disciplinary Authority to pass a
fresh
order
so
far
as
quantum
of
punishment is concerned, keeping in view
of observations of this Court.

24. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1071
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6131 of 2023

Nahni & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether a criminal revision is maintainable
against an order passed by the Magistrate under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to
register an F.I.R. and investigate, at the instance
of the proposed accused against whom neither
cognizance has been taken nor process issued.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.156(3), 397(2) - Revision - Direction
to register F.I.R. - Interlocutory order -
Maintainability - Proposed accused - Bar
under
Section
397(2)
-
Revision
dismissed.

Held: