# Rajvir Singh v. U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1422
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-02
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 161 of 2025
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajvir-singh-v-u-p-rajkiya-nirman-nigam-ltd-ors-53481
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27 could not be initiated to result in a
decree. We respectfully agree with view
taken in Babita @ Gyatri (supra) that
section 27 has not been considered to be a
separate and independent matrimonial
proceeding so as to entitle the Court to
entertain such independent application. The
Division Bench went on to refer to a
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Balkrishna
Ramchandra
Kadam
vs.
Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam reported in AIR
1997 SC 3562 to say, the Apex Court had said,
section 27 provides alternative remedy to the
wife so that she can recover the property, which
is covered by the section. Accordingly we hold,
return of 'stree dhan' has to be an issue, to be
determined at trial in a proceeding under the Act
and not independently on application made
under section 27.

9. We would like to add, section 25
allows for a spouse to, subsequent to decree for
dissolution of marriage, apply for direction on
maintenance, either by monthly or gross sum.
Section 27 empowers the Court passing decree
to include provisions in it with respect to any
property presented, at or about the time of
marriage, which may belong jointly to the
parties. We see that there was no direction in
respect of property, joint or otherwise, made in
the judgment and decree dated 1st May, 2023
dissolving the marriage.

10. Impugned judgment is set aside in
appeal. On 15th May, 2025, the draft was
handed over to Mr. Singh on acknowledgement
made by him denoting receipt thereof. His client
may appropriate same in adjustment of her claim
for maintenance, emanating from aforesaid order
dated 11th August, 2017. She thus has received
aggregate Rs. 7 lacs. Her claim can only be till
on or before date of judgment dissolving the
marriage i.e. 1st May, 2023. Photocopies of the
instrument were signed by Mr. Singh. One was
kept in the record and the other handed over to
Mr. Shalvin, who had submitted, in addition to
aggregate Rs. 7 lacs, respondent recovered Rs.
2,10,000/- by part execution of impugned
judgment. Said sum be also adjusted against
respondent's claim pursuant to said maintenance
order dated 11th August, 2017 made under
section 125 in Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. We direct accordingly, in exercise of our
appellate power under rule 33 in order XLI,
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

11. Before parting with the case we are
required to deal with respondent's contention
that appellant was unsuccessful in seeking
review of impugned judgment as well as had not
preferred
appeal
against
the
execution
proceeding initiated by her. While grounds of
review stand provided in section 114 and the
procedure in order XLVII, appeal is statutory
right, conferred by section 96 and provided for in
order XLI. So far as the execution is concerned,
appellant having succeeded in the appeal, the
execution case must be dropped, as pursuant to
impugned order passed without jurisdiction,
being a nullity. The executing Court will act
accordingly on such question arisen on
adjudication of the appeal, to be determined by
the executing Court, under section 47.

12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1422
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Special Appeal No. 161 of 2025

Rajvir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents
5 All. Rajvir Singh Vs. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
1423
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pradeep Kumar Rai, Lallan Rai, Prakash
Pandey, Praveen Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shishir Jian

A. Service Law - Model Conduct, Discipline
and Appeal Rules, 1998 - Rules 5(3), 18
(1) & (2) - Disciplinary proceeding -
Suspension - Misconduct - Allegations
regarding acquisition of the property
made in the chargesheet have not been
denied - Effect - Possessing immovable
property disproportionate to source of
income, whether amount to misconduct -
Held, the immovable properties possessed
by
an
employee
working
in
the
Corporation
disproportionate
to
the
known
source
of
income
certainly
amounts to a misconduct in view of the
definition clause provided under Rule 5(3)
- Division Bench found no illegality in the
Judgment of Single Judge dismissing writ
against suspension. (Para 8, 9 and 11)
Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. AL Kalra Vs Project and Equipment Corp. of
India Ltd.; (1984) 3 SCC 316
(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri P. K. Rai, learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri Sishir Jain, learned
counsel for the respondents.

2. This intra-court appeal filed under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court
Rules
has
assailed
the
judgment/order dated 10.04.2025 passed by
the writ court in Writ-A No.3907 of 2025
whereby challenge to the charge-sheet and
order of suspension passed against the
appellant has failed. The writ petition filed
by the appellant has been disposed of
issuing a specific direction to conclude the
disciplinary proceedings within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of the
reply filed by him in response to the
charge-sheet and subject to his co-operation
in the same.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant has argued that the charges
framed against him though are referable to
Rule-18 (1) and (2) of the Model Conduct,
Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1998 but the
allegations are such that the same do not
constitute a misconduct.

4. Therefore, not only that the
order of suspension is bad in the eye of law
but the very initiation of the disciplinary
proceedings is without sanctity of law.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
in
order
to
buttress
the
submission put-forth, has placed reliance
upon the judgment in the case of AL Kalra
vs. Project and Equipment Corporation
of India Limited reported in (1984) 3
SCC 316 and has taken us through some
relevant paras of the same. In the light of
the judgment placed reliance upon, it is
argued that the same is squarely applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

6. On a plain reading of the Rules,
1998, it is gathered that Rule-5 (3) in
relation to allegations made, defines the
misconduct as under :-

 "Rule-5 (3) "कदाचार" शब्द की
व्यापकता पर प्रगतकूल प्रभाि डाले गिना अकारण और
आचरण के गनम्नगलगित कायों को कदाचार माना िायेिा

 (1) -----
 (2) -----
1424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (3) कममचारी द्वारा या उसकी ओर से गकसी
अन्य व्यगि द्वारा आय के ज्ञात सािनों से असंित िन संिंिी
संसािन या सम्पगि या स्िागमत्ि रिना, गिसका कममचारी
सन्तोषप्रद रूप से लेिा-िोिा न दे सकता हो।"

 7. The charge-sheet issued in the
present case has been referred to under
Rule-18 (1) and (2) which for ready
reference is also extracted hereunder :-

 "18-(1) कोई भी कममचारी गिना अपने सक्षम
प्रागिकारी की पूिम िानकारी के पट्टे, गिरिी, क्रय, गिक्रय,
उपहार के रूप में गकसी भी अचल सम्पगि का न तो अपने
नाम से और न अपने पररिार के गकसी सदस्य के नाम से
अगिग्रहण या गनस्तारण नहीं करेिा।

(2) गिना अपने सक्षम अगिकारी की पूिम
अनुमगत के, कोई भी कममचारी गकसी ऐसे व्यगि या प्रगतष्ठान
के कममचारी या उसके मातहत से गिसके साथ उसका पदीय
कायों से सम्िन्ि हो, गकसी अचल या चल सम्पगि सम्िन्िी
लेन-देन नहीं करेिा।"

8. Definite allegations in the chargesheet have been levelled pointing out the
properties which have been acquired by the
appellant
without
any
intimation
or
permission by the competent authority. The
immovable properties possessed by an
employee working in the Corporation
disproportionate to the known source of
income certainly amounts to a misconduct in
view of the definition clause provided under
Rule-5 sub rule 3 extracted above.

9. In the case at hand, the allegations
made in the charge-sheet regarding acquisition
of the property have not been denied
altogether on the basis of any tangible proof
showing that no such title whatsoever has been
acquired by the appellant in the properties
mentioned in the charge-sheet.

10. In any case once the allegations
have been levelled against the petitioner of
acquiring
immovable
property
disproportionate to his known source of
income, there is no reason as to why such a
proceeding may not be allowed to continue
and brought to its logical conclusion at the
earliest.

11. On a careful consideration of
the judgment/order under appeal, we are of
the considered opinion that the judgment
passed by writ court does not suffer from
any illegality calling for an interference in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this
court on the grounds urged before us.

12. The intra-court appeal bereft of
any merit is accordingly rejected.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1424
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 11589 of 2023

Prithvi Raj Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union
Bank of India, Central office, Mumbai
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr. Vivek Ratan Agarwal

A.
Service
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - Disciplinary
proceeding - Scope of interference - How
far High Court sit in appeal over finding of
disciplinary authority - Held, the Court
can interfere if the opinion given on the
material is perverse, based on irrelevant
evidence or ignoring material evidence.