# Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 133
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-22
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 12020 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-kumar-yadav-v-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-ors-54575
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Judicial
Officer
-
Compulsory
retirement
-
Validity
-
Petitioner,
a
Higher
Judicial
Service
officer,
compulsorily
retired
on
recommendation of Screening Committee
and approval by Full Court - Challenge
raised that adverse materials were either
irrelevant,
not
considered
in
proper
perspective, or pending representation -
Held: adverse entries including integrity
not certified (2008-09), advisory issued by
Administrative Committee (2011), and
censure entry imposed in 2012 had
attained finality and constituted valid
basis for assessing unsuitability - Though
remark
for
2018-19
was
pending
representation
and
later
expunged,
remaining materials were sufficient -
Screening Committee considered entire
service record and formed opinion in
public
interest
-
No
malafide,
arbitrariness
or
perversity
shown
-
Judicial review limited in such cases -
Compulsory retirement is not punitive,
and even uncommunicated entries may be
relied upon - Judicial officers are held to
higher standards of probity and judicial
discipline - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras
10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 23 to 26)

HELD:
Upon overall evaluation of the material placed
on record, we are of the considered view that
the Screening Committee had taken note of
adverse
material
on
record
against
the
petitioner so as to recommend his compulsory
retirement. Out of three material referred to
above as 'A', 'B' & 'C' we find that the adverse
remark of Administrative Judge for the year
2008-09 as also the censure entry awarded to
the petitioner by the Administrative Committee
on 11.10.2012 in itself, were sufficient to come
to the conclusion that continuance of petitioner
in employment is not warranted and he be
compulsorily retired. (Para 15)

After analysing the facts of the case and the
judgments referred to above, we have no
hesitation in holding that there did exist adverse
material in the service record of the petitioner
on the strength on which subjective satisfaction
could have been formed to come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be
compulsorily retired. Law is well settled that
sufficiency or otherwise of such material cannot
be gone into in writ. Correctness or otherwise of
the adverse material also cannot be examined
when such entries have attained finality. (Para
25)

Having evaluated the material on record we hold
that material adverse against the petitioner did
exist on record to form an opinion by the
Screening Committee that petitioner is liable to
be compulsorily retired. The decision taken by
the Full Court and the consequential decision of
the St. Government to compulsorily retire the
petitioner, therefore, warrants no interference.
This is particularly so, as the petitioner is a
Judicial Officer, who acts on behalf of the St. in
discharge of its sovereign function. The ordinary
litigant must have complete faith in the judicial
system and no impression can be afforded to be
given to a litigant which may even remotely
create percept

## Text

128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by natives of the village, as the petitioner
had staked his candidature for Police
Service. One of the things that would have
to be seen and borne in mind by the
Superintendent of Police, is the general
reputation of the petitioner in order to find
out whether he was a person with criminal
propensities or a man belonging to the main
stream of life. This we say particularly
because except for Case Crime No.564 of
2015, that was registered about the time
relating to his recruitment, no criminal
history of the petitioner showing him as a
wayward man, has surfaced during a keen
search of his background.

46. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 19.03.2023 passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Hathras is hereby
quashed. A mandamus is issued to the
Superintendent of Police, Hathras to reconsider
the
petitioner's
case
for
appointment as a Police Constable on the
foot of the selections held in furtherance of
Advertisement
No.
PRPB-1
(82)/15,
bearing in mind the guidance in this
judgment. Since, it is a very old matter, the
necessary order shall be passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Hathras within a
period of four weeks of receipt of a copy of
this order and the result communicated to
the petitioner.

47. There shall be no order as to
costs.

48. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Superintendent of
Police,
Hathras
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA.128
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR,
J.

Writ A No. 10500 of 2024

Dr. Yogendra Bhadauria ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
I.M. Pandey Ist, Ajeet Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Raj
Kumar
Upadhyaya
(R.K.
Upadhyaya)

Service Law - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
7(vii) - Disciplinary proceedings - Minor
penalty
-
Procedural
irregularity
-
Mandatory enquiry procedure under Rule
7 of 1999 Rules - Oral evidence not
recorded - Reliance on extraneous office
report - Promotion and sealed cover
procedure - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
7(vii)
-
Government
Order
dated
28.05.1997 - Principle of K.VS Jankiraman
case-Failure to record oral evidence and
opportunity
to
cross-examine
vitiates
enquiry - Use of office report without
notice
is
extraneous
consideration
-
Penalty order unsustainable - Promotion
cannot be denied mechanically due to
pendency
of
irregular
disciplinary
proceedings - Petition allowed. (Paras 6
to 11, 13 to 15)

HELD:

A perusal of Rule 7(vii) shows that the
procedure provided in the 1999 Rules is very
clear that where the government servant who
has been charged denies the charges, the
enquiry officer shall call the proposed witnesses
mentioned in the charge sheet and record their
oral evidence in presence of the charged
government servant and then he shall be given
4 All. Dr. Yogendra Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
129
an opportunity to cross examine the said
witnesses. This procedure for recording oral
evidence of the witnesses proposed in the
charge sheet has not been followed by the
enquiry officer, at all. The disciplinary authority
has provided a copy of the enquiry report dated
24.7.2024 along with the show cause notice, to
which the petitioner has given his reply. The
enquiry officer has not summoned any of the
witnesses as mentioned in the charge sheet
during the course of enquiry. Thus, the enquiry
on this ground is vitiated. (Para 7)

From the above, it is evident that the
disciplinary authority while passing punishment
order has taken examination/opinion of the
office and for that no opportunity was given to
the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order suffers
from considering such extraneous material, for
which there is no provision in 1999 Rules. (Para
9)

A Division Bench of this Court in Subhash
Chandra Gupta versus St. of U.P. 2011 CJ(All)
2938 has held that when the statute provides to
do a thing in a particular manner that thing has
to be done in that very manner. It is further held
that when the punishment is awarded on the
basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance
with the enquiry rules, it is unsustainable in the
eye of law. (Para 11)

It is further worthy to note that although the St.
Government has remanded the matter to the
enquiry officer to conduct a fresh enquiry, still
the enquiry officer has proceeded with the
enquiry as per his whims ignoring the 1999
Rules, for the reasons best known to him and
therefore,
this
court
does
not
deem
it
appropriate to again give liberty to the St.
Government to conduct a fresh enquiry. Further,
since admittedly, the persons junior to the
petitioner have already been promoted, the case
of the petitioner was considered in the
Departmental Promotion Committee and kept in
the sealed cover. The promotion orders of the
incumbent who are similarly situate and junior
to the petitioner have been passed on 6.3.2024
which is on record. Therefore, it will be apt if
the respondents are directed to open the sealed
cover
of
the
petitioner and
proceed
in
accordance with law, as also in the light of
judgment of Supreme Court in U.O.I.& ors.
versus K.VS Jankiraman & ors. 1991 AIR 2010.
(Para 13)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Subhash Chandra Gupta Vs St. of U.P. 2011
CJ(All) 2938

2. U.O.I.& ors. Vs K.VS Jankiraman & ors. 1991
AIR 2010

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Mr.I.M.Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel for the State as also Mr. R.K.
Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of U.P. Public Service Commission.

2. The petitioner, in the petition,
has prayed for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari quashing impugned
order
dated
9.9.2024
whereby
the
respondent No.1 has imposed punishment
of stoppage of two increments for two
years along with censure entry against the
petitioner.

 A further prayer for issuance of a
writ of mandamus directing respondents
not to take any action against the petitioner
on the basis of impugned order dated
9.9.2024 with another direction to the
respondents to open sealed cover of
petitioner's promotion to the post of
Geologist
and
to
implement
the
recommendation
of
the
promotion
committee ignoring the impugned order,
Annexure-1 has also been sought.

3.The
petitioner's
counsel
has
assailed the impugned order dated 9.9.2024
on two grounds. Firstly, the enquiry
conducted by the enquiry officer is dehors
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
provisions
of
Rule
7
of
U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules, 1999 (in short, 1999 Rules), and
secondly, while passing the punishment
order, office report was summoned and on
the basis of office report, the impugned
order has been passed. It is submitted that
there is no provision in the 1999 Rules for
summoning office report. The punishment
order has to be passed on the basis of the
enquiry conducted in pursuant to the charge
sheet as well as the reply submitted to the
show cause notice by the delinquent
government
servant
and
no
other
extraneous material is permitted. It is
further submitted that the oral evidence
proposed to be examined during the course
of enquiry as mentioned in the charge sheet
has not been recorded in this case and as
such, the enquiry is vitiated.

4.Learned standing counsel has
opposed the contention and submitted that
since the minor penalty has been inflicted
and therefore, there is no reason for
examining the witnesses.

5.The petitioner appears to have
been placed under suspension vide order
dated 6.1.2022. Charge sheet was issued to
the petitioner by the enquiry officer on
8.12.2022, which contains only one charge.
The documentary evidence as well as oral
evidence which were proposed to be
examined
during
the
enquiry
were
mentioned. The petitioner submitted his
reply to the charge sheet where after, the
enquiry
officer
heard
the
petitioner
personally and on that basis, without
examining any other witness as proposed in
the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer sent
enquiry report to the State Government.
The State Government, vide order dated
1.12.2023, remanded the matter to the
enquiry officer with a direction to conduct
oral enquiry and also examine the evidence
and then to submit fresh enquiry report.

 After
remand
by
the
State
Government, the enquiry officer again
conducted enquiry and submitted his
enquiry report dated 24.7.2024, contained
in Annexure No.RA-1 to the rejoinder
affidavit.

6. A perusal of the enquiry report
shows that during enquiry, the proposed
oral evidence was not led before the
enquiry officer as provided in Rule 7(vii) of
1999 Rules. None of the witnesses as
mentioned in the charge sheet has been
summoned and examined during the course
of enquiry. Before proceeding further, it
would be appropriate to have a reference to
Rule 7(vii) of 1999 Rules which is
extracted below :

"Where the charged Government
servant denies the charges, the Inquiry
Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses
proposed in the charge-sheet and record
their oral evidence in presence of the
charged Government servant who shall be
given opportunity to cross-examine such
witnesses. After recording the aforesaid
evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and
record the oral evidence which the charged
Government servant desired in his written
statement to be produced in his defence :

Provided that the Inquiry Officer
may for reasons to be recorded in writing
refuse to call a witness."

7.A perusal of Rule 7(vii) shows
that the procedure provided in the 1999
Rules is very clear that where the
government servant who has been charged
denies the charges, the enquiry officer shall
call the proposed witnesses mentioned in
the charge sheet and record their oral
4 All. Dr. Yogendra Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
131
evidence in presence of the charged
government servant and then he shall be
given an opportunity to cross examine the
said
witnesses.
This
procedure
for
recording oral evidence of the witnesses
proposed in the charge sheet has not been
followed by the enquiry officer, at all.

The disciplinary authority has
provided a copy of the enquiry report dated
24.7.2024 along with the show cause
notice, to which the petitioner has given his
reply.

The enquiry officer has not
summoned any of the witnesses as
mentioned in the charge sheet during the
course of enquiry. Thus, the enquiry on this
ground is vitiated.

8.As regards second ground taken
by the petitioner's counsel that the
impugned order has been passed for
extraneous consideration, this court finds
from a perusal of the punishment order that
this contention of the learned counsel
carries weight. Relevant part of the
impugned order where the opinion of the
disciplinary
authority
has
been
considered is extracted below :

कार्ाालर् का परीक्षण/अभिमत :
जाांच
अधिकारी
द्वारा
प्रश्नगत
अनुशासननक कार्ावाही में पुनरीक्षक्षत जााँच
आख्र्ा उपलब्ि करार्ी गर्ी है, जजसमें जाांच
अधिकारी द्वारा वविागीर् कार्ावाही के प्रकरण
में Do's व Don'ts ववषर्क काभमाक वविाग के
शासनादेश ददनाांक 19.07.2022 का अनुपालन
करते हुए आर्ारशीट, परीक्षण सम्बन्िी आख्र्ा
प्रपत्र, व्र्जततगत सुनवाई के उपजथिनत वववरण,
अनुशासननक कार्ावाही से सम्बजन्ित प्रभशक्षण
प्रमाण-पत्र उपलब्ि कराते हुए कार्ावाही का
वववरण उपलब्ि करार्ा गर्ा है तिा गवाहों व
साक्ष्र्ों का परीक्षण ककर्ा गर्ा है। जाांच
अधिकारी द्वारा अपने ननष्कषा में कहा गर्ा है
कक अपचारी अधिकारी के ऊपर पट्टािारकों से
भमलीिगत/दुरभिसांधि ककर्ा जाना भसद्ि नहीां
होता है, ककन्तु पररवहन के ववरूद्ि प्रवतान
कार्ो में भशधिलता बरते जाने एवां खनन क्षेत्रों
का समुधचत ननरीक्षण/पर्ावेक्षण कार्ा नहीां ककर्ा
जाना भसद्ि होता है।

9.From the above, it is evident that
the disciplinary authority while passing
punishment
order
has
taken
examination/opinion of the office and for
that no opportunity was given to the
petitioner. Thus, the impugned order
suffers from considering such extraneous
material, for which there is no provision in
1999 Rules.

10.A Division Bench of this Court
in Subhash Chandra Gupta versus State
of U.P. 2011 CJ(All) 2938 has held that
when the statute provides to do a thing in a
particular manner that thing has to be done
in that very manner. It is further held that
when the punishment is awarded on the
basis of an enquiry not conducted in
accordance with the enquiry rules, it is
unsustainable in the eye of law.

11.The objection raised by the
learned standing counsel that since minor
punishment has been awarded to the
petitioner, therefore, the enquiry officer
was not required to record oral evidence,
coupled with the opportunity to the
delinquent employee to cross examine the
witnesses has no force.

From perusal of the record, it is
evident that the petitioner was placed under
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suspension, which can be done only when
the charges are so serious which will entail
major penalty. After that, charge sheet was
issued.
However,
while
passing
the
punishment order, lesser punishment can
always be given keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of the case as also the
material available on record. Thus,
submission of learned standing counsel that
no oral enquiry was needed in this case is
baseless. The enquiry officer should have
adhered the mandatory procedure provided
under 1999 Rules and ought to have called
upon the witnesses proposed in the charge
sheet in conducting oral enquiry, that too in
the presence of the petitioner and he should
have been given an opportunity to crossexamine them, which has not been done in
this case. No oral enquiry from the
witnesses proposed in the charge sheet has
been done. Thus, the punishment order
which is based on the said enquiry cannot
sustain. Likewise, the punishment order
also cannot sustain as it is based on
extraneous consideration, as discussed
above.

12.This court has taken note of the
fact
that
during
pendency
of
the
disciplinary proceedings, selection for the
post of Geologist has been conducted and
several Assistant Geologists including one
Ashish Chaudhary who is junior to the
petitioner have been promoted on higher
post whereas the petitioner's promotion has
been withheld due to pendency of the
disciplinary proceedings. Specific pleading
in this regard has been made in para 44 of
the writ petition, to which no reply has
been given by the State while filing counter
affidavit.

13.It is further worthy to note that
although
the
State
Government
has
remanded the matter to the enquiry officer
to conduct a fresh enquiry, still the enquiry
officer has proceeded with the enquiry as
per his whims ignoring the 1999 Rules, for
the reasons best known to him and
therefore, this court does not deem it
appropriate to again give liberty to the State
Government to conduct a fresh enquiry.
Further, since admittedly, the persons
junior to the petitioner have already been
promoted, the case of the petitioner was
considered in the Departmental Promotion
Committee and kept in the sealed cover.
The promotion orders of the incumbent
who are similarly situate and junior to the
petitioner have been passed on 6.3.2024
which is on record. Therefore, it will be apt
if the respondents are directed to open the
sealed cover of the petitioner and proceed
in accordance with law, as also in the light
of judgment of Supreme Court in Union of
India
and
others
versus
K.V.
Jankiraman and others 1991 AIR 2010.

14.Mr. R.K. Upadhayay, learned
counsel for the Commission submits that
the case of the petitioner shall be
considered for promotion after opening the
sealed cover if he is otherwise found fit and
also in accordance with the Government
Order dated 28.5.1997.

15.In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 9.9.2024 (supra) is set aside. The
respondents are directed to open the sealed
cover of the petitioner and proceed in
accordance with law, and if the petitioner is
otherwise found fit to be promoted on the
higher post, he shall be so considered for
promotion on the higher post. In case any
person junior to the petitioner has been
promoted, he shall also be considered for
being promoted from the date his juniors
were so promoted as also the notional
benefit of seniority etc. Such an exercise
4 All. Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
133
shall be done within a period of
three months from the date of service of a
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 133
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ A No. 12020 of 2022

Ramesh Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sr. Advocate, Udayan Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Mishra, C.S.C.

Service
Law
-
Judicial
Officer
-
Compulsory
retirement
-
Validity
-
Petitioner,
a
Higher
Judicial
Service
officer,
compulsorily
retired
on
recommendation of Screening Committee
and approval by Full Court - Challenge
raised that adverse materials were either
irrelevant,
not
considered
in
proper
perspective, or pending representation -
Held: adverse entries including integrity
not certified (2008-09), advisory issued by
Administrative Committee (2011), and
censure entry imposed in 2012 had
attained finality and constituted valid
basis for assessing unsuitability - Though
remark
for
2018-19
was
pending
representation
and
later
expunged,
remaining materials were sufficient -
Screening Committee considered entire
service record and formed opinion in
public
interest
-
No
malafide,
arbitrariness
or
perversity
shown
-
Judicial review limited in such cases -
Compulsory retirement is not punitive,
and even uncommunicated entries may be
relied upon - Judicial officers are held to
higher standards of probity and judicial
discipline - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras
10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 23 to 26)

HELD:
Upon overall evaluation of the material placed
on record, we are of the considered view that
the Screening Committee had taken note of
adverse
material
on
record
against
the
petitioner so as to recommend his compulsory
retirement. Out of three material referred to
above as 'A', 'B' & 'C' we find that the adverse
remark of Administrative Judge for the year
2008-09 as also the censure entry awarded to
the petitioner by the Administrative Committee
on 11.10.2012 in itself, were sufficient to come
to the conclusion that continuance of petitioner
in employment is not warranted and he be
compulsorily retired. (Para 15)

After analysing the facts of the case and the
judgments referred to above, we have no
hesitation in holding that there did exist adverse
material in the service record of the petitioner
on the strength on which subjective satisfaction
could have been formed to come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be
compulsorily retired. Law is well settled that
sufficiency or otherwise of such material cannot
be gone into in writ. Correctness or otherwise of
the adverse material also cannot be examined
when such entries have attained finality. (Para
25)

Having evaluated the material on record we hold
that material adverse against the petitioner did
exist on record to form an opinion by the
Screening Committee that petitioner is liable to
be compulsorily retired. The decision taken by
the Full Court and the consequential decision of
the St. Government to compulsorily retire the
petitioner, therefore, warrants no interference.
This is particularly so, as the petitioner is a
Judicial Officer, who acts on behalf of the St. in
discharge of its sovereign function. The ordinary
litigant must have complete faith in the judicial
system and no impression can be afforded to be
given to a litigant which may even remotely
create perception against the justice delivery
system. There is otherwise no allegation of any
bias or malafide against the members of