# Ram Laxman Prasad v. Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 648
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-08-23
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 45 of 2001
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-laxman-prasad-v-director-bal-vikas-sewa-evam-pushtahar-and-others-39908
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Dismissal order- appellant's conviction-
stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court against
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Ram Laxman Prasad V. Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar and others
649
the judgment of High Court- Disciplinary
Proceeding initiated on the grounds-
Dispite
of
conviction,
the
appellant
moved application for leave on the
pretext of illness of his wife, and several
other charges levelled- after full fledge
enquiry- after considering the reply
submitted
pursuant
to
show
cause
notice-
Dismissal
order
passed-
by
exercising power under 226, the Court
can not act as an Appellate authority.
However it is open for the appellant to
approach
before
the
Departmental
Authority
if
acquitted
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

Held- Para 7

We are of the view that there is no error
in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge in dismissing the writ petition of
the appellant. However, in view of the
fact that the charge No. 1 and charge No.
3 refer to the conviction of the appellant
in the aforesaid criminal case, it is
observed that in case the appellant is
acquitted in the criminal case in his
appeal pending before the apex court, it
will be open to him to approach the
disciplinary
authority
bringing
the
aforesaid fact in the notice of the
disciplinary authority and it will be open
to the disciplinary authority to pass such
orders as it may think proper in the facts
of the present case. We, however, make
it clear that the acquittal, if any, will not
automatically entitle the appellant to
claim reinstatement. This liberty which
we have given to the appellant to
approach the disciplinary authority in
case of acquittal has been due to the fact
that
criminal
conviction
has
been
referred to in the charge sheet and some
charges
in
the
charge
sheet
have
stemmed from the conviction of the
appellant in criminal case.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1995 SC 1364 Relied on
AIR 1989, SC 1185
AIR 1995 SC 1364

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
648
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has also submitted that the letter of
District Magistrate dated 24 October,
1991 which is referred to in the impugned
order was never supplied to the
petitioner.It is to be noted that by show
cause notice, the petitioner was informed
that there is a challenge to his claim of
resident of village Tarna Tarni and one
letter of District Magistrate was referred.
The burden to prove that petitioner is
resident of village Tarna Tarni was clearly
on him since he sought employment on
basis of said fact. When the show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner to
prove that he is resident of village Taran
Tarni, unless the petitioner satisfied the
respondents by any cogent proof that he is
resident of village Taran Tarni, no error
can be said to have been committed by the
respondents
in
cancelling
his
appointment. It is true that it would have
been better if the letter of the Collector
dated 24 October, 1991 was informed to
the petitioner but in view of the facts of
the present case and the issue which was
raised in the writ petition that petitioner is
resident of a particular village we are not
inclined to interfere with the order
impugned in the writ petition. The learned
Single Judge has also considered the
pleadings of the parties and the materials
brought before the Court and has rightly
dismissed the writ petition.

9. We have also looked into the
materials brought in the appeal in support
of claim of the petitioner that he is
resident of village Taran Tarni and are
satisfied that petitioner has failed to prove
the said fact by any cogent evidence. With
regard to claim of petitioner on the basis
of voter list of 1988-89, it is to be noted
the name of the petitioner in the said voter
list was refuted and reliance was placed
on the report dated 24.5.1990 of Gram
Pradhan as well as report of the Assistant
Election Officer which were filed along
with the counter affidavit of respondent
no. 3 in the writ petition.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts,
this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India rightly refused to
adjudicate the disputed questions of fact.
In view of the above, no error can be said
to have been committed by learned Single
Judge in dismissing the writ petition.
None of the submissions raised by the
counsel for the petitioner has any merit.
No good grounds have been made out to
interfere with the judgement of learned
Single Judge. There is no merit in the
special appeal.

The special appeal fails and is
dismissed. No order as to the cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 45 of 2001

Ram Laxman Prasad

...Petitioner
Versus
Director Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar, U.P.,
Lucknow and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Laxman Prasad (in person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Dismissal order- appellant's conviction-
stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court against
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Ram Laxman Prasad V. Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar and others
649
the judgment of High Court- Disciplinary
Proceeding initiated on the grounds-
Dispite
of
conviction,
the
appellant
moved application for leave on the
pretext of illness of his wife, and several
other charges levelled- after full fledge
enquiry- after considering the reply
submitted
pursuant
to
show
cause
notice-
Dismissal
order
passed-
by
exercising power under 226, the Court
can not act as an Appellate authority.
However it is open for the appellant to
approach
before
the
Departmental
Authority
if
acquitted
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

Held- Para 7

We are of the view that there is no error
in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge in dismissing the writ petition of
the appellant. However, in view of the
fact that the charge No. 1 and charge No.
3 refer to the conviction of the appellant
in the aforesaid criminal case, it is
observed that in case the appellant is
acquitted in the criminal case in his
appeal pending before the apex court, it
will be open to him to approach the
disciplinary
authority
bringing
the
aforesaid fact in the notice of the
disciplinary authority and it will be open
to the disciplinary authority to pass such
orders as it may think proper in the facts
of the present case. We, however, make
it clear that the acquittal, if any, will not
automatically entitle the appellant to
claim reinstatement. This liberty which
we have given to the appellant to
approach the disciplinary authority in
case of acquittal has been due to the fact
that
criminal
conviction
has
been
referred to in the charge sheet and some
charges
in
the
charge
sheet
have
stemmed from the conviction of the
appellant in criminal case.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1995 SC 1364 Relied on
AIR 1989, SC 1185
AIR 1995 SC 1364

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Laxman Prasad
appellant appearing in person and Sri
Sabhajeet
Yadav,
learned
standing
counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed against
the judgment dated 14.12.2000 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 46153 of 1999 Ram
Laxman Prasad vs. Director, Bal Vikas
Sewa and Pushtahar, U.P. and others. By
the judgment dated 14.12.2000 the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ petition filed by the petitioner
challenging the dismissal order dated
21.8.1999 passed by the Director Bal
Vikas
Sewa
and
Pushtahar,
U.P.
Lucknow.

The fact giving rise to this appeal
briefly stated are;

3. The appellant was initially
working as constable in Provincial Armed
Constabulary. On account of participation
of the appellant in the Provincial Armed
Constabulary revolt of 1973, his services
were dismissed under the provision of
proviso to Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution
of
India.
Criminal
proceedings were also initiated in which
the appellant claimed to have acquitted in
the year 1979 against which State filed an
appeal in the High Court. The appellant
was successful in getting appointment on
daily wages as driver in 1983 in Bal Vikas
Sewa and Pushtahar at Basti. The services
of the appellant as driver were regularised
on 26.2.1984. Thereafter he continued to
work in the Department of Bal Vikas
Sewa and Pushtahar in the State. Criminal
Appeal filed on behalf of the State in the
High Court was allowed by the judgment
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
650
dated 25.3.1998 convicting the appellant
and
other
persons
with
rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years.
The
petitioner-appellant
moved
an
application on 5.5.1998 praying for casual
leave upto 8th May, 1998 on the ground of
illness of his wife. The appellant was
arrested on 30th May, 1998 in view of his
conviction by the High Court and
remained in prison from 30.5.1998 to
29.10.1998. The appellant was bailed out
under the orders of the Supreme Court
dated 16th October, 1998 in Special leave
to appeal (criminal) against the judgment
of
the
High
Court.
Disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the
appellant by issuing charge sheet dated
25.2.1999 and supplementary charge
sheet dated 3.4.1999. Four charges were
levelled against the appellant in the
charge sheet dated 25.2.1999 including
the charge No. 1 which was to the effect
that on account of conviction and
sentence
of
seven
years'
rigorous
imprisonment the appellant was detained
in prison from 30th May, 1998 which
conduct of the appellant was against the
Government Servant Conduct Rules and
his integrity is doubtful. Charge no. 2 was
to the he effect that by concealing the
fact he took leave from 5.5.1998 to
8.5.1998 on the ground of illness of wife.
The third charge was to the effect that
even though he was sent to jail on
4.5.1998 but with intent to mislead the
department applications were sent by the
appellant praying for grant of leave and
salary. The fourth charge was to the effect
that the appellant did not deposit the key
of the government vehicle due to which
there was hindrance of discharge of
government functions. Additional charge
no.1 was to the effect the certificate dated
4.2.1974 claimed to be issued by the
Commandant
26th
Provincial
Armed
Constabulary Battalion, Gorakhpur is
fictitious. Second charge was again to the
effect
that
the
appellant
obtained
employment on the basis of certificate
dated 4.2.1974 which has been found to
be forged. The third charge was to the
effect that the appellant was convicted
and sentenced to three years rigorous
imprisonment by the Additional District
Judge, Gorakhpur vide order dated
9.3.1979 and the appellant concealed the
relevant fact from the Department at the
time of his selection as driver. After
receiving the charge sheet the appellant
wrote to the Director that the Enquiry
Officer who is Zila Karya Kram Adhikari,
Basti be changed. The said prayer of the
appellant was not accepted by the
Director and the appellant was informed
of the aforesaid fact and asked to submit
his explanation. Petitioner submitted his
reply to the charge sheet on 14.6.1999 and
thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted
enquiry
report
on
19.6.1999.
The
appellant was issued show cause notice by
the letter dated 22.6.1999 by which copy
of the enquiry report was also sent to the
appellant. The appellant submitted reply
to the show cause notice vide his letter
dated 9.8.1999. The disciplinary authority
vide its order dated 21st September, 1999
dismissed the appellant from service. The
disciplinary
authority
held
that
the
charges are proved against the appellant
and the appellant obtained service in the
department by concealing the relevant
fact and by preparing forged certificate
hence he cannot be allowed to continue in
service. Against the order dated 21.9.1999
the appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 46153 of 1999 which has
been dismissed by the learned Single
Judge vide his order dated 14.12.2000.
Learned Single Judge held that the
charges against the appellant were proved
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Ram Laxman Prasad V. Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar and others
651
in the disciplinary enquiry, learned Single
Judge held that the charges having been
proved against the petitioner in the
enquiry, the order of dismissal against the
appellant has rightly been passed. Against
the aforesaid judgment the present appeal
has been filed.

4. The appellant who has appeared
in person challenging the impugned order,
has submitted that the enquiry against him
has not been held in accordance with the
principle of natural justice. He submitted
that the Enquiry Officer was not impartial
and he has already written several letters
for change of the Enquiry Officer. It was
submitted that the appellant did not
conceal any material fact from the
department.
He
contended
that
the
certificate filed before the department
dated 4.2.1974 was genuine certified
issued by the officiating commandant Sri
B.B.Seth. He contended that the charge
against the appellant have not been
proved and the punishment of dismissal is
not in accordance with law. It has been
contended that against the order of High
Court allowing government appeal vide
judgement
dated
25.03.1998,
the
appellant has already been bailed out.
Other charges have been denied.

5. Learned Standing counsel replying
the submissions of the appellant has
submitted that the dismissal order has
rightly been passed after holding the
disciplinary enquiry, learned standing
counsel submitted that the appellant
having been convicted by criminal court
has rightly been dismissed. He has
submitted that the fact that the appellant
has been granted bail by the apex Court,
does not in any way affect the conviction.
He has also placed reliance on the
judgement of apex Court in Deputy
Director
of
Collegiate
Education
Madras vs. S. Nagar Meera reported in
AIR 1995 SC 1364. The learned standing
counsel further contended that the enquiry
having been held in accordance with the
principle of natural justice and the
findings arrived at on the basis of
materials, this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution cannot sit in appeal over
the decision of disciplinary authority and
the quantum of punishment can also not
be interfered with. Reliance has also been
placed on the case of Union of India vs.
Parmanand reported in AIR 1989 SC
1185.

6. We have heard the appellant in
person as well as the learned standing
counsel appearing for the respondents.
We have also perused the records of this
appeal. The order of the disciplinary
authority is based on materials on record
including the enquiry report.. The enquiry
officer found all the charges proved
against the appellant. The submission of
the appellant that the enquiry has not been
held in accordance with the principle of
natural justice since the Enquiry Officer
was not changed inspite of he having
submitted application for change of the
Enquiry Officer, has no effect on the
enquiry, because the prayer to change the
Enquiry Officer was considered and
refused by the Director. No materials
have been brought on record to draw any
inference that the Enquiry Officer was
biased with the appellant. The contention
that the Enquiry Officer was himself
complaintant cannot be accepted. The
letters of the Zila Karya Kram Adhikari
which are mentioned in the charge sheet
were the reports pertaining to facts and
events and cannot be treated to be
complaints against the appellant. The
findings on charges by the disciplinary
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
652
authority are based on materials. This
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution cannot interfere with the
findings on charges. We have noticed
from the record that after submissions of
reply to the charge sheet no oral enquiry
took place. The reply to the charge sheet
was submitted by the appellant on
14.6.1999
and
the
Enquiry
Officer
submitted enquiry report on 19.6.1999.
However, since the appellant in his reply
to the charge sheet has not specifically
prayed for holding of an enquiry nor
offered to give any oral evidence or to
cross examine any witness, we need not
think it necessary to examine the
aforesaid matter any further. It is not
disputed that the appellant has been
convicted by the High Court for the
offences under Sections 147,148,149,342,
120B, 504,506,338, 353, 307,395,394 and
427 Indian Penal Code; 6/7 Provincial
Armed Constabulary Act, and 25/27 Arms
Act by the order dated 26.3.1998,
although the appellant has been bailed out
under the orders of the apex Court and the
appeal is pending but as laid down by the
apex Court in AIR 1995 SC 1364
(Deputy Director Collegiate Education
Madras vs. S. Nagur Meera) the effect
of granting bail or even stay of sentence
has no effect on the conduct which led to
his conviction. In the present case
although charge No. 1 of the main charge
sheet and charge No. 3 of the additional
charge sheet refers to and rely the
conviction of the appellant by criminal
court but the dismissal is not based solely
on the conviction by the criminal court.
The other charges against the appellant
have been found proved.

7. After giving our thoughtful
consideration to the facts of the case, we
are of the view that there is no error in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in
dismissing the writ petition of the
appellant. However, in view of the fact
that the charge No. 1 and charge no. 3
refer to the conviction of the appellant in
the aforesaid criminal case, it is observed
that in case the appellant is acquitted in
the criminal case in his appeal pending
before the apex Court, it will be open to
him to approach the disciplinary authority
bringing the aforesaid fact in the notice of
the disciplinary authority and it will be
open to the disciplinary authority to pass
such order as it may think proper in the
facts of the present case. We, however
make it clear that the acquittal, if any, will
not automatically entitle the appellant to
claim reinstatement. This liberty which
we have given to the appellant to
approach the disciplinary authority in case
of acquittal, has been due to the fact that
criminal conviction has been referred to in
the charge sheet and some charges in the
charge sheet have stemmed from the
conviction of the appellant in criminal
case.

8. In view of what has been said
above, we do not find any good ground to
interfere with the judgement of the
learned Single Judge. This appeal is
dismissed subject to observations and
liberty as given above. No order as to
costs.
---------