# Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 501
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-15
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 21629 of 2011
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53582
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

K.N. Yadav, N.K. Yadav, Nikhil Kumar,
Prashant, Satyam Singh

Issue for consideration
 Whether the punishment of dismissal from
service is shockingly disproportionate?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - It is well settled that in
normal circumstances, Courts are slow in
causing interference in the orders passed
in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 15)

B. It is well settled that inquiry initiated
before retirement may continue even after
retirement of delinquent as well as in
present case, a liberty was granted by the Court
vide an order passed in earlier round of
litigation, money collected from Members after
issuing receipts was not deposited. Lesser
money was shown in account balance. The
period of embezzlement runs for many years.
Details of embezzlement are mentioned in
earlier part of the judgment. The petitioner has
submitted vague averments which are not
sufficient to contradict the findings. (Para 20)

Since there is no procedural error in the process
of disciplinary proceedings, principles of natural
justice were followed, direction given vide order
dated 26.07.2010 passed by this Court were
also followed as well as that the petitioner has
not appeared despite repeated opportunities to
access the documents as well as specific
reasons are assigned in the proposal adopted in
regard to various acts of embezzlement,
therefore, no circumstances exist to interfere
with the impugned order as well as Court also
takes note that allegations are of financial
embezzlement which has caused huge financial
loss to respondents, therefore, punishment of
dismissal from service is also not shockingly
disproportionate. (Para 21)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

7 All. Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
501
on 07.07.2023. The Court further observed
that merely because a matter has been
referred to a larger Bench in State Bank of
India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019) 5
SCC 600, the legal position as stands today
cannot be made unsettled but the law exists
shall have to be followed. Vide paragraph
23 the Court held thus:

"23. We are also aware that the
reference made to Larger Bench of the
Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs.
Sheo Shankar Tewari is still pending before
that Court. However, in view of the
discussion made above as to the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, since the
occurrence of that reference vide order
dated 08.02.2012 we do not find any doubt
exists as to the law to be applied in matters
of compassionate appointments, in the
meanwhile. For that reason as well, since
on the date of occurrence of death of Sri
Surendra Kumar Agrawal, on 06.9.2014,
there did not exist any scheme for grant of
compassionate appointment, the claim
made by the petitioner would fail."

22. The Supreme Court judgments in
the cases of Dharamveer Singh (supra)
and Ashish Awasthi (supra) which have
been relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioners, which have been reproduced
hereinabove, also provides that the scheme
that was prevalent on the date of death of
an
employee
should
be
taken
into
consideration
for
the
purposes
of
compassionate appointment.

23. In such above view of the matter,
the respondents are held 'not justified' in
rejecting the claim of the respective
petitioners for compassionate appointment
on the ground that they could not succeed
in the 'Stenography Test' pursuant to the
Rules, 2015.

24. Accordingly, the respondents are
directed to reconsider the applications of
the respective petitioners as per the dyingin-harness Rules, 2014. In the considered
view of the Court, this time a positive
consideration must be accorded more
especially when the petitioners have
succeeded in the 'Typing Test' as per own
stand of the respondents and they shall be
offered appointment.

25. I must add here that delay for long
consideration of claims by respondents and
the pendency of the matter before this
Court since 2015 would not invite clause of
5 years' bar so as to seek further approval
of State Government. The said clause shall
not be attracted in the present case.

26.
Appropriate
orders
for
compassionate appointment, accordingly,
shall be passed to all the respective
petitioners within a maximum period of
one month from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order, if there is no
legal impediment.

27. The writ petition succeeds and is,
accordingly, allowed as above.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 501
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 21629 of 2011

Ramesh Chandra Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Chhaya Gupta, Rajiv Joshi
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
K.N. Yadav, N.K. Yadav, Nikhil Kumar,
Prashant, Satyam Singh

Issue for consideration
 Whether the punishment of dismissal from
service is shockingly disproportionate?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - It is well settled that in
normal circumstances, Courts are slow in
causing interference in the orders passed
in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 15)

B. It is well settled that inquiry initiated
before retirement may continue even after
retirement of delinquent as well as in
present case, a liberty was granted by the Court
vide an order passed in earlier round of
litigation, money collected from Members after
issuing receipts was not deposited. Lesser
money was shown in account balance. The
period of embezzlement runs for many years.
Details of embezzlement are mentioned in
earlier part of the judgment. The petitioner has
submitted vague averments which are not
sufficient to contradict the findings. (Para 20)

Since there is no procedural error in the process
of disciplinary proceedings, principles of natural
justice were followed, direction given vide order
dated 26.07.2010 passed by this Court were
also followed as well as that the petitioner has
not appeared despite repeated opportunities to
access the documents as well as specific
reasons are assigned in the proposal adopted in
regard to various acts of embezzlement,
therefore, no circumstances exist to interfere
with the impugned order as well as Court also
takes note that allegations are of financial
embezzlement which has caused huge financial
loss to respondents, therefore, punishment of
dismissal from service is also not shockingly
disproportionate. (Para 21)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhupendra Singh,
MANU/SC/0854/2024;
2024:INSC:592;
2024
SCC OnLine 1908 (Para 15, 21)
2. State Bank of India Vs. Naveen Kumar Sinha,
MANU/SC/1220/2024; 2024 INSC 874 (Para 19)

List of Keywords
Service Law; dismissed; embezzlement; inquiry;
superannuation;
disciplinary
proceedings;
suspension; principles of natural justice.

Appearances for Parties

For Petitioner: Chhaya Gupta and Rajiv Joshi

For Respondents: K.N. Yadav, N.K. Yadav,
Nikhil Kumar, Prashant and Satyam Singh

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

1. Petitioner while working as Secretary in
Sadhan Sahkari Samit Karaura, Bulandshahar
was dismissed from services vide order dated
01.06.2022
for
repeated
instance
of
embezzlement.

2. Aforesaid order was challenged by the
petitioner by way of a statutory appeal and by
order dated 10.01.2005, order under appeal was
set aside and matter was remitted back to
District Administrative Committee to pass a
fresh order.

3. The District Administrative Committee
passed an order dated 03.06.2006 whereby the
petitioner was again dismissed from services.

4. Challenge to it by way of statutory
appeal was failed vide order dated 18.06.2008.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner
preferred a Writ A No. 53113/2008 against
orders dated 03.06.2006 and 18.06.2008 which
was allowed by this Court vide order dated
26.07.2010 whereby both orders were set aside.
For reference, relevant part of order is quoted
below :-

"In view of the aforesaid admitted
and conceded position that the proceedings are
vitiated and have been conducted in violation of
principles of natural justice, there is no option
7 All. Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
503
but to set aside the order dated 3.6.2006 as well
as the appellate order dated 18th June, 2008.
Accordingly the said orders are quashed.

The proceedings shall be initiated
against
the
petitioner
by
the
District
Administrative Committee after providing an
opportunity to the petitioner to submit his
defence against the two charge sheets on which
reliance has been placed by the respondents.
The petitioner shall be afforded reasonable
opportunity and also shall be allowed to access
to the documents which may be necessary for
his
defence.
The
District
Administrative
Committee shall apprise the petitioner of about
the documents which are required by him in
writing
and
the
District
Administrative
Committee shall thereafter proceed to take a
decision in the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the petitioner is to retire shortly.
In view of the aforesaid position, it is provided
that the District Administrative Committee shall
proceed to conclude the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible preferably within
three months from today.

In case, the respondents choose to
consider the petitioner still under suspension
then in that event the petitioner shall be entitled
to
his
subsistence
allowance
from
the
concerned society.

The writ petition is accordingly
allowed."

6. In pursuance of above order, petitioner
was allowed to rejoin, however, by order dated
26.08.2010, he was again put under suspension
and on same day, earlier issued charge sheet and
supplementary charge sheet were also served.

7. It is a case of petitioner that he has submitted
repeated letters dated 31.08.2010, 25.09.2010,
27.09.2010, 07.10.2010, 25.10.2010 and 29.10.2010
and demanded necessary documents, however,
according to petitioner, it were never supplied.

8. The District Administrative Committee
submitted an inquiry report and adopted a Resolution
dated 08.01.2011 and its relevant part being "भवचारण"
is as follows :-

"कमेटी द्वारा सम्प्यक भवचार भवमशव उपरांत
उिानुसार गबन/ अपहरण, गंिीर भवत्तीय अभधभनयभमतताये करने
तथा सभमभत का पूणव चाजव न सौपने का दोिी पाए जाने के
फलस्वरूप सववसम्प्मभत से भनणवय भलया गया भक श्री रेम भसंह
भनलंभबत सभचव को एक कारण बताओ नोभटस भदया जाये भक
उपरोि आरोपों के बारे में वह अपना पक्ष इस कारण बताओ
नोभटस के १५ भदन के अंदर रेभित करना सुभनभश्चत करे भक क्यों न
उपरोि गंिीर आरोप भसद्ध होने की भस्थभत में सेवा से पृथक कर
अन्य भवभधक कायवाही संपन्न की जाये। यभद श्री रेम भसंह का उत्तर
भनधावररत समय तक राप्त नहीं होता है तो यह मानकर भक इन्हे
आरोपों के बारे में कुछ नहीं कहना है तथा सिी आरोप मान्य है।
पत्रावली पुनः कमेटी के भनणवयाथव रस्तुत की जाये।"

9. The petitioner was thereafter dismissed from
services vide order dated 15.01.2011. Relevant part
thereof is mentioned below :-

"अतः कमेटी द्वारा श्री गुप्ता को पूवव में भनगवत आरोप
पत्र व अऩुपूरक आरोप पत्र के सापेक्ष श्री गुप्ता के पूवव रेभित उत्तर
तथा संयुि जांच अभधकाररयों की संयुि जांच आख्याओं का
गम्प्बीरता पूववक भबन्दुवार परीक्षण करने तथा सम्प्यक भवचार भवमशव
उपराभन्त श्री गुप्ता को आरोप पत्र के आरोप संख्या 1,3, 4, 6, 9,
11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 में भनम्प्नानुसार मु०
86331.78 रु. गबन/अपरहरण, मु०
80866.00 रु.
दुवभवभनयोग/गम्प्िीर भवत्तीय अभनयभमत्तायें करने, अभिलेखों में
कूटकरण करने, अभिलेखों को फाड़ने/नि करने तथा साधन
सहकारी सभमभत भल० करौरा के रकरण में गभठत अनुपूरक आरोप
पत्र में आरोभपत आरोप के अनुसार भदनांक 1-4-2000 से 31-52000 तक सभमभत सदस्यों से मु० 183598.00 रु. की ऋण
वसूली कर सदस्य खातों में पृभवभि कर/करा कर धनराभश बैंक
शाखा में सभमभत के ऋण खाता में जमा न करके अपहरण करने
तथा भदनांक 1-4-2000 से 31-5-2000 तक की कैशबुक,
रसीदबुक, बाऊचर पत्रावली भकताब कायवाही आभद महत्वपूणव
अभिलेख चाजव में न सौंपने का दोिी पाया।

आरो
प
सं
गबन
अपहरण की
राभश
दुवभवभनयोग/ग०भव०अ
० की राभश

भववरण
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ख्या

01

4000.50

-
भदनााँक 1012-1994
को
मु.
13720.
46
रु.
अवशेि
तहबील के
स्थान पर मु.
9719.96
रु. अवशेि
तहबील
अंभकत कर
मु.
4000.50
रू.
का
अपहरण
करने
के
दोिी

03
98.00
-
भदनांक 291-95
को
अवशेि
तहबील मु.
7069.00
रु. के स्थान
पर
मु.
6971.00
रू. अंभकत
कर
मु.
98.00 रु.
अपहरण के
दोिी।
04
-
399.00
भदनांक 102-95
में
अभनयभमत
यात्रा ित्ता
िुगतान राप्त
कर
व
139.00 रु.
ब्याज
की
हाभन पुहंचाने
के दोिी।

06
1768.00
-
भदनांक 313-1995 को
खार भबक्री
नगद
की
धनराभश 14-1995 के
रारभम्प्िक
अवशेि में न
पकड
कर
और न ही
बैंक
जमा
कर अपहरण
के दोिी।
09
100
-
भदनांक 1805-1995
को कैशबुक
के
सायर
खाचव
में
तहबील कम
भनकाल कर
अपहरण।
11
3600.00
-
भदनााँक
611-95 में
कैशबुक में
अवशेि
रोकड कम
दशावकर
अपहरण।
12
600.00
-
भदनााँक
512-1995
में कैशबुक
में अवशेि
रोकड़ कम
दशावकर
अपहरण।
15
-
89.00
अभनयभमत
7 All. Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
505
व्यय
कर
सभमभत को
ब्याज
की
हाभन पुहंचाने
के दोिी।
18
40784.00
-
भदनााँक 305-2000 को
भनलंबन
पश्चात 315-2000 से
गम्प्िीर रूप
से हृदयरोग
से
पीभड़त
होते
हुए
भदनांक
26-2000 को
यू.पी.एस.ए
स. मेरठ से
उपिोिा
सामान लाना
स्वीकार
भकया जाना
तथा
इसी
रकार
भदनााँक
37-2000 को
उपिोिा
सामान
लाकर
अपहरण
करने
के
दोिी।
19
-
-
करौरा
सभमभत की
1-4-2000
से
भदनााँक
31-52000 तक
की कैशबुक,
रसीदबुक,
बाऊचर
पत्रावली,
कायवाही
रभजस्टर
आभद
महत्वपूमव
अभिलेख
चाजव में न
सौंपने
के
दोिी।
20
-
34208.00
भदनांक 2611-98 में
राप्त
98
कट्टा
गेहूं
बीज
राप्त
कर स्टाक में
पकड़ने के
पश्चात
भदनााँक 2711-1998
से
अनाभधकृत
रूप
से
अवकाश पर
चले
जाने
तथा
गेहूाँ
बीज
क्षभतग्रस्त हो
जाने के भलए
पूणव रूप से
उत्तरदायी।
21
19274.43
-
20563.
00
13395.
00

12212.
00
भशकारपुर
सभमभत
के
उववरक
व्यसाय
में
अपहरण
असमायोभज
त बैंकों की
धनराभश जो
बकायादार
सदस्यों को
ऋण भवतरण
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
करने
के
कारण बैंक
में
समायोभजत
नहीं हो सके,
के
भलए
दोिी।
असमायोभज
त बैंकों के
भवरूद्ध
वसूली ऋण
वसूली राभश
सभमभत
के
कैश
एण्ड
कैरी खाता
में जमा न
कर
अन्य
मदों
में
भविागीय
भनदेशों
के
भवपरीत जमा
करने
के
दोिी।
नगद उववरक
भबक्री
की
धनराभश को
सभमभत
के
कैश
एण्ड
कैरी खाता
में जमा न
कर
अन्य
मदों में सीधे
कैशबुक से
नगद व्यय
करने
के
दोिी।
22
7701.15
3770.70
5235.00
-
-
-

भशकारपुर
सभमभत
से
स्थानान्तरण
पश्चात
कैशबुक के
अनुसार
अवशेि
रोकड शेि
रभतस्थानी
सभजव को
चाजव में न
सौंप
कर
अपहरण
रोकड शेि
कम भनकाल
कर
एवं
रारभम्प्िक
रोकड में न
जोडकर
अपहरण।
सभमभत
आभकक को
3
माह
अरैल 97 से
जून 97 तक
कैशबुक के
अनुसार दो
बार
नकद
वेतन
िुगतान
दशावकर
अपहरण।
योग
86931.78
80866.00

183598.0
0
-
अनुपूरक
आरोप पत्र
में आरोभपत
आरोप
के
अनुसार
सभमभत
में
1-4-2000
से
31-52000 तक
सदस्यों को
रसीद भनगवत
कर
ऋण
वसूली की
7 All. Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
507
धनराभश को
सदस्यों के
खातों
में
पृभवभि
कर/कराकर
बैंक जमा न
करके
अपहरण के
दोिी

उि के अभतररि श्री रमेश चन्द्र गुप्ता के भवरूद्ध
साधन सहकारी सभमभत भल० करौरा के ररण में मु०
220991.00 रू. गबन/अपहरण करने तथा भदनांक 1-42000 से 31-5-2000 तक की कैशबुक, रसीदबुक, बाऊचर
पत्रावली, भकताब कायवाही, पी०डी०एस० व्यवसाय एवं गेहूाँ
खरीद से सम्प्बभन्धत अभिलेख चाजव में न सौंपकर खुदव बुदव करने
का मु.अ.सं. 163/2002 अन्तगवत धारा 409 पंजीकृत है,
भजसकी भववेचनाभधकारी, भवशेि अनुसंझान शाखा सह- मेरठ
द्वारा भववेचना उपरान्त रकरण माननीय अपर मुख्य न्याभयक
मभजस्रेट, तृतीय मेरठ के न्यायालय में भवचाराधीन है तथा थाना
भशकारपुर में मु.अ.सं. 319/02 अन्तगवत धारा 409 मु.
35981.00 रु. गबन/अपहरण करने की रथम सूचना ररपोटव
दजव है, भजसकी पुभलस भववेचना उपरान्त रकरण माननीय
जनपद न्यायालय में भवचाराधीन है।

श्रीगुप्ता के भवरूद्ध उ.र. सहकारी समभत
अभधभनयम 1965 की धारा 68(2) के अन्तगवत भजला सहायक
भनबंधक, सहकारी सभमभतयााँ, उ.र. बुलन्दशहर द्वारा मु.
201199.95 रु. मय 12 रभतशत ब्याज की भडक्री अभधिार
आदेश पाररत भकया जा चुका है।

अतः कमेटी द्वारा सम्प्यक भवचार भवमशव उपरान्त
सववसम्प्मभत से श्री रमेश चन्द्र गुप्ता, सेवाच्युत कैडर सभचव जो
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद के आदेश भदनांक 26-72010 के अनुपालन में भनलम्प्न की भस्थभत में हैं तथा जो उ.र.
रार. कृभि सहकारी ऋण सभमभत केन्द्रीयत सेवा भवभनयमावली
1976 के भनयम संख्या 27(ए) के अन्तगवत अपनी 58 विव
अभधविवता आयु भदनााँक 31-12-2010 को पूणव कर चुके हैं,
के सम्प्बन्ध में भजला रशासभनक कमेटी की बैठक भदनााँक 235-2002 व 30-05-2006 में भलए गए भनणवय को सही मानते
हुए सेवाच्युत भकए जाने का भनणवय भलया गया।

अतः भजला रशासभनक कमेटी की बैठक भदनााँक
08-01-2011 में भलए गए भनणवय के अऩुपालन में श्री रमेश
चन्द्र गुप्ता, भनलभम्प्बत सभचव को कैडर सभचव पद की चाकरी से
सेवाच्युत भकया जाता है। "

10. Aforesaid order is impugned in this
writ petition.

11. Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for
petitioner has submitted that directions passed
in the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by this
Court was not complied with as well as inquiry
was continued even after petitioner has attained
age of superannuation, which was legally
impermissible.

12. Learned counsel has further submitted
that despite various communications, relevant
documents were not provided, as such, direction
of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2010 qua to
supply documents was also not followed. The
petitioner has not committed any financial
embezzlement, therefore, charges were not
proved
on
basis
of
evidence
available.
Otherwise also, on proved charges, punishment
is shockingly disproportionate.

13. Per contra, S/Sri Abhishek Mishra and
Mahesh Narain Mishra, learned counsel for
respondents have supported the impugned order
and submitted that this Court vide order dated
26.07.2010 has granted liberty to put the
petitioner under suspension and after providing
charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet
and to grant liberty to access documents and
after
submission
of
reply,
disciplinary
proceedings may be concluded. Said directions
were strictly followed. A copy of both charge
sheets were supplied and reply was sought,
however, despite all papers were given in the
earlier
round
of
proceedings,
petitioner
unnecessarily submitted repeated applications
only to delay the proceedings. Explanation
submitted was found unsatisfactory and on
basis of material, charges of embezzlement
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were proved and punishment of dismissal is not
shockingly disproportionate.

14. Heard learned counsel for parties and
perused the records.

15. It is well settled that in normal
circumstances, Courts are slow in causing
interference in the orders passed in disciplinary
proceedings. For reference relevant part of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case
of State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 is mentioned
hereinafter:

"23.The scope of examination and
interference
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Constitution') in a case of the present
nature, is no longer res integra. In State of
Andhra Pradesh v.S Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963
SC 1723, a 3-Judge Bench stated:

'7. ... The High Court is not
constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of
the Constitution a Court of appeal over the
decision
of
the
authorities
holding
a
departmental
enquiry
against
a
public
servant:it is concerned to determine whether
the enquiry is held by an authority competent in
that behalf, and according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules
of natural justice are not violated. Where there
is some evidence, which the authority entrusted
with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted
and which evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty
of the charge, it is not the function of the High
Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226
to review the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. The High
Court may undoubtedly interfere where the
departmental
authorities
have
held
the
proceedings against the delinquent in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or
in violation of the statutory rules prescribing
the mode of enquiry or where the authorities
have disabled themselves from reaching a fair
decision by some considerations extraneous to
the evidence and the merits of the case or by
allowing themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant
considerations
or
where
the
conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable
person could ever have arrived at that
conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the
departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is
otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts
and if there be some legal evidence on which
their findings can be based, the adequacy or
reliability of that evidence is not a matter which
can be permitted to be canvassed before the
High Court in a proceeding for a writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution.'

24. The above was reiterated by a
Bench of equal strength in State Bank of India
v. Ram Lal Bhaskar, (2011) 10 SCC 249. Three
learned Judges of this Court stated as under in
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao,
(1975) 2 SCC 557:

'25. In State Bank of India v. S.K.
Sharma,(1996) 3 SCC 364, two learned Judges
of this Court held:

'28. The decisions cited above make
one thing clear, viz., principles of natural
justice cannot be reduced to any hard and fast
formulae. As said in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk
[[1949] 1 All ER 109 : 65 TLR 225] way back
in 1949, these principles cannot be put in a
strait-jacket. Their applicability depends upon
the context and the facts and circumstances of
each case. (See Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief
Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2
SCR 272]) The objective is to ensure a fair
hearing, a fair deal, to the person whose rights
are going to be affected. (See A.K. Roy v. Union
of India [(1982) 1 SCC 271:1982 SCC (Cri)
152] and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of
India [(1981) 1 SCC 664].) As pointed out by
this Court in A.K. Kraipakv. Union of India
[(1969) 2 SCC 262], the dividing line between
quasi-judicial
function
and
administrative
function (affecting the rights of a party) has
become quite thin and almost indistinguishable
- a fact also emphasised by House of Lords in
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for
7 All. Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
509
the Civil Service [[1984] 3 All ER 935 : [1984]
3 WLR 1174 : [1985] A.C. 374, HL] where the
principles of natural justice and a fair hearing
were treated as synonymous. Whichever the
case, it is from the standpoint of fair hearing -
applying the test of prejudice, as it may be
called - that any and every complaint of
violation of the rule of audi alteram partem
should be examined. Indeed, there may be
situations where observance of the requirement
of prior notice/hearing may defeat the very
proceeding - which may result in grave
prejudice to public interest. It is for this reason
that the rule of post-decisional hearing as a
sufficient compliance with natural justice was
evolved in some of the cases, e.g., Liberty Oil
Mills v. Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 465].
There may also be cases where the public
interest or the interests of the security of State
or other similar considerations may make it
inadvisable to observe the rule of audi alteram
partem altogether [as in the case of situations
contemplated by clauses (b) and (c) of the
proviso to Article 311(2)] or to disclose the
material on which a particular action is being
taken. There may indeed be any number of
varying situations which it is not possible for
anyone to foresee. In our respectful opinion, the
principles emerging from the decided cases can
be stated in the following terms in relation to
the disciplinary orders and enquiries : a
distinction ought to be made between violation
of the principle of natural justice, audi alteram
partem, as such and violation of a facet of the
said principle. In other words, distinction is
between "no notice"/ "no hearing" and "no
adequate hearing" or to put it in different
words, "no opportunity" and "no adequate
opportunity". To illustrate - take a case where
the person is dismissed from service without
hearing him altogether (as in Ridge v. Baldwin
[[1964] A.C. 40 : [1963] 2 All ER 66 : [1963] 2
WLR 935]). It would be a case falling under the
first category and the order of dismissal would
be invalid - or void, if one chooses to use that
expression (Calvin v. Carr [[1980] A.C. 574 :
[1979] 2 All ER 440 : [1979] 2 WLR 755, PC]).
But where the person is dismissed from service,
say, without supplying him a copy of the
enquiry officer's report (Managing Director,
ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727 :
1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704])
or without affording him a due opportunity of
cross-examining a witness (K.L. Tripathi
[(1984) 1 SCC 43 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 62]) it
would be a case falling in the latter category -
violation of a facet of the said rule of natural
justice - in which case, the validity of the order
has to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice,
i.e., whether, all in all, the person concerned
did or did not have a fair hearing. It would not
be correct - in the light of the above decisions
to say that for any and every violation of a facet
of natural justice or of a rule incorporating
such facet, the order passed is altogether void
and ought to be set aside without further
enquiry. In our opinion, the approach and test
adopted in B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727 :
1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704]
should govern all cases where the complaint is
not that there was no hearing (no notice, no
opportunity and no hearing) but one of not
affording a proper hearing (i.e., adequate or a
full hearing) or of violation of a procedural rule
or requirement governing the enquiry; the
complaint
should
be
examined
on
the
touchstone of prejudice as aforesaid."

16.
This
Court
vide
order
dated
26.07.2010 has granted liberty to respondents to
put the petitioner under suspension and after
giving copy of both charge sheets and after
providing access to documents, on basis of
reply filed, the disciplinary proceedings may be
concluded.

17. On the basis of record, it is not much
disputed that copy of charge sheets were
supplied and reply was sought. So far as access
to documents is concerned, I have carefully
perused the record and despite copy of
documents were already given in earlier
proceedings, the petitioner in order to linger on
the proceedings has filed repeated applications
to
supply
documents.
He
was
granted
opportunity to access the documents, however,
he does not appear.

18. I have also perused the proposal
adopted by Committee which is placed along
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with supplementary counter affidavit wherein
all the allegations were dealt in detail as well as
that despite petitioner was called to appear in
person to access documents and informed by
the registered post, however, it is specifically
noted that petitioner has not appeared.

19. Court also takes note that in regard to
allegations of embezzlement, specific finding
was returned in resolution so adopted and that
petitioner has not deposited money on many
occasions and due to misconduct of petitioner,
respondents have suffered financial loss, a very
serious misconduct. (See State Bank of India
vs. Naveen Kumar Sinha, 2024 INSC 874)

20. It is also well settled that inquiry
initiated before retirement may continue even
after retirement of delinquent as well as in
present case, a liberty was granted by the Court
vide an order passed in earlier round of
litigation, money collected from Members after
issuing receipts was not deposited. Lesser
money was shown in account balance. The
period of embezzlement runs for many years.
Details of embezzlement are mentioned in
earlier part of the judgment. The petitioner has
submitted vague averments which are not
sufficient to contradict the findings.

21. In aforesaid circumstances and taking
note of State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra
Singh (supra), since there is no procedural
error in the process of disciplinary proceedings,
principles of natural justice were followed,
direction given vide order dated 26.07.2010
passed by this Court were also followed as well
as that the petitioner has not appeared despite
repeated opportunities to access the documents
as well as specific reasons are assigned in the
proposal adopted in regard to various acts of
embezzlement, therefore, no circumstances
exist to interfere with the impugned order as
well as Court also takes note that allegations are
of financial embezzlement which has caused
huge financial loss to respondents, therefore,
punishment of dismissal from service is also not
shockingly disproportionate.

22.
Accordingly,
writ
petition
is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 510
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 25277 of 2018

Arun Pratap Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avanish Kumar Upadhyay, Raj Kumar
Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
Whether after the employee has attained the
age of superannuation, correction in the pay
scale should be considered beyond the period of
34 months?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Petitioner, who has retired on
31st March, 2017 as Senior Assistant from the
office of District Magistrate, Varanasi, is aggrieved by
the order dated 15th May, 2017 passed by the
Collector, Varanasi disputing the grade pay of
Rs.4600 with an additional one increment given to
the petitioner on 22nd December, 2011 reducing his
pay to Rs.50,500/- on the date of his superannuation
as against Rs.52,000/- as per the chart issued from
the office of Collector, Varanasi under his signature.
(Para 2)

The order impugned is found to be absolutely silent
as to any opportunity being afforded to the petitioner
to offer his explanation qua the proposed action of
correction in the pay grade. The order simply records
that petitioner's pay fixation and pay grade Rs.4600/-
along with additional increment was malicious and
hence deserved correction. (Para 8)

B. GO dated 16th January, 2007 is very
specific on the point that after the
employee
has
attained
the
age
of