# Rajiv Mishra v. Managing Director Central Bank of India & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1475 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-02-04 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 32433 of 2015 - **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajiv-mishra-v-managing-director-central-bank-of-india-ors-54162 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 2 All. Rajiv Mishra Vs. Managing Director Central Bank of India & Ors. 1475 30. In the result, this writ petition fails and stands dismissed. 31. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. Let the original records produced by Mr. Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Advocate be returned forthwith for their onward transmission to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Khutar, District Shahjahanpur. ---------- (2026) 2 ILRA 1475 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. Writ A No. 32433 of 2015 Rajiv Mishra ...Petitioner Versus Managing Director Central Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (1) Legality of the order passed by the Bank-authority rejecting the application for Ex-gratia payment on the ground of its being filed beyond period of six months as provided under the Circular dated 09.04.2008. Headnotes (A) Service law - Ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment - Entitlement - Period of limitation - Under the Circular dated 09.04.2008, the limitation of filing the application for Ex-gratia payment is six months from the date of death of employee, however application was filed beyond it - Authority rejected the application on the ground of delay - Validity challenged - Bank issued a letter dated 23.2.2013 that instead of compassionate appointment, Ex-gratia payment can be made on submission of the required papers - Lack of knowledge of Circular - Relevance - Bank failed to show that the internal document regarding limitation period was communicated to the legal heirs of deceased employee - Effect : (E-1) Held : The internal circular of Bank are normally not within the knowledge of any person, who is not connected with the Bank unless the same is published and is widely circulated. It is not the case of the Bank that petitioner was having knowledge of the circular dated 9.4.2008 at the time of death of employee - Coupled with the facts that Bank itself by letter dated 23.2.2013 has invited the application from the petitioner for submitting application for Ex-gratia payment then the date of knowledge of aforesaid circular, at best, can be taken from the date of letter dated 23.2.2013 - In view of the letter dated 23.2.2013 of the respondentBank and coupled with the fact that internal circular cannot by itself cause a limitation on applying unless the internal document is communicated to legal heirs of deceased employee, which in the present case, Bank has not shown, the impugned letter/orders dated 19.9.2013 and 8.11.2013 passed by respondent no. 2 is hereby set aside. [Para 6, 7 and 8] List of Acts Circular dated 09.04.2008. List of Keywords 1476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Compassionate appointment, Ex-gratia payment, Limitation, Internal Circular of Bank. Case Arising From Order dated 08.11.2014 of the Bank-authority rejecting the application for Ex-gratia lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner : B. P. Verma. Advs. for the Respondents : Gyan Prakash Shrivastava, V. K. Srivastava. (Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent-Bank and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter\orders dated 19.9.2013 and 8.11.2013 passed by respondent no.2 contained in Annexure no 8 and 12 respectively to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Bank to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment under dying in harness rules. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent Bank to provide Ex-gratia payment to the petitioner in lieu of the appointment." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that mother of petitioner was employee of the respondent-Bank, who died on 7.10.2011. Petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 8.2.2013. In response thereof, respondent-Bank has issued a letter dated 23.2.2013 that compassionate appointment cannot be awarded, however, Ex-gratia payment can be made, if the papers are submitted as required by the Bank. In pursuance thereof, brother of petitioner Sanjeev Mishra have applied on 7.7.2013. The aforesaid application for Ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment was rejected by Bank on 8.11.2014 on the ground that application for Ex-gratia lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment has to be submitted within six month from the date of death of employee. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is only when the Bank has invited the aforesaid application from the petitioner by letter dated 23.2.2013 for Exgratia payment, the brother of petitioner had applied, who in the year 2017 has died. Therefore, the present writ petition was filed by petitioner as Ex-gratia payment is for the benefit of whole family and as such, petitioner is also entitled to claim Ex-gratia payment. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that limitation as has been stated of six month has arisen out of circular of the respondentBank, which is filed at page 12 of the counter affidavit. The circular is of 9.4.2008. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that circular is internal document of respondent-Bank and it was not within the knowledge of legal heirs of deceased employee and as such, application for Ex-gratia 2 All. Rajiv Mishra Vs. Managing Director Central Bank of India & Ors. 1477 payment could not be made. Even otherwise, it is the Bank, who has communicated by letter dated 23.2.2013 to apply for Ex-gratia payment, then the application has been filed within six months. 4. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that as per circular of the Bank Ex-gratia payment is required to be applied within six month from the date of death of employee. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank has relied upon circular dated 9.4.2008 of the Bank, which is filed as Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that in view of the fact that application was filed beyond limitation prescribed in the aforesaid circular, the claim for Ex-gratia payment has been rejected. 5. On a query being made to learned counsel for respondent-Bank as to why Bank has issued a letter dated 23.2.2013 filed along with writ petition as Annexure No.3 for inviting application for Ex-gratia payment when the Bank was very well aware that the application is required to be filed as per circular within six months from the date of death of employee, learned counsel for respondentBank could not give any satisfactory reply in this respect. 6. It is to be seen that Ex-gratia payment is in lieu of compassionate appointment. The mother of petitioner was employee of Bank, which fact is admitted to the Bank. The internal circular of Bank are normally not within the knowledge of any person, who is not connected with the Bank unless the same is published and is widely circulated. It is not the case of the Bank that petitioner was having knowledge of the circular dated 9.4.2008 at the time of death of employee. It is not shown by learned counsel for respondent-Bank that the legal heirs of deceased employee was communicated with the circular of the Bank dated 9.4.2008. Coupled with the facts that Bank itself by letter dated 23.2.2013 has invited the application from the petitioner for submitting application for Ex-gratia payment then the date of knowledge of aforesaid circular, at best, can be taken from the date of letter dated 23.2.2013. As per impugned order, application for Ex-gratia payment has been made on 7.7.2013 by the brother of petitioner, namely, Sanjeev Mishra. Although, learned counsel for respondent-Bank tries to impress upon the Court that brother of petitioner had applied for Ex-gratia payment and his application was rejected by means of impugned order. It is not in dispute that brother of petitioner Sanjeev Mishra has expired in the year 2017. It is further to be noted that Ex-gratia payment is for the benefit of family members of the deceased employee and as such, each member of the family would be entitled to claim the same. 7. In view of the letter dated 23.2.2013 of the respondent-Bank and coupled with the fact that internal circular cannot by itself cause a limitation on applying unless the internal document is communicated to legal heirs of deceased employee, which in the present case, Bank has not shown. 8. In view of aforesaid, the impugned letter/orders dated 19.9.2013 and 8.11.2013 passed by respondent no.2 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded bank to respondent no.2 to consider the application of petitioner for Ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment without going into the question of limitation, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. If the Bank requires any document or formality is to be completed, the same may be communicated to the petitioner in writing within 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of the order and the petitioner would oblige to complete the aforesaid formality within one month thereafter. 1478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ---------- (2026) 2 ILRA 1478 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. Writ A No. 34343 of 2013 Santosh Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration (a) Whether the Court in the present case can interfere with the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings? (b) Whether on the basis of subsequent acquittal in criminal trial, impugned order (dated 15.05.2013 which held the correctness of the inquiry report, wherein all charges against petitioner were found proved) can be set aside? Headnotes A. Service Law - Mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. The High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally (sic, legally) the impugned conclusion follows or not. (Para 14) In present case, petitioner was granted ample opportunity to appear and place his case before Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer has submitted a very detailed inquiry report wherein statement of victim girls were recorded and despite granting various opportunities, he has not availed the same and as such Court is of considered opinion that, inquiry was conducted after complying principles of natural justice. (Para 11) After second show cause notice was issued, again petitioner was granted ample opportunities to present his case, however, he has opted not to appear, therefore, Committee of Management adopted a very detailed proposal, wherein all materials were mentioned specifically, after detailed consideration. (Para 12) On basis of directions of this Court, matter was referred to Commission, which has passed impugned order that outcome of inquiry was against petitioner and punishment was correctly awarded considering nature of allegations. There is no ground for this Court to disbelieve the statement of victim girls recorded during inquiry wherein they have supported their respective complaints that petitioner was indulged in explicit sexual conversation and unwarranted touch with victims. (Para 13) Therefore, this Court does not find that within very limited scope of interference, outcome of disciplinary proceedings can be interfered. (Para 14) B. As per the cardinal principle of law an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives. (Para 17)