# Rasool Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 733
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-02
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 360 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rasool-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46672
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Pension - Corruption -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7
& 13 - Civil Services Regulation - Regulation
351 - Regulation 351 provides that future good
conduct is an implied condition of ever grant of a
pension. The State Government reserve to themselves
the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or
any part of it, if the pensioner be convicted of serious
crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision
of the State Government on any question of
withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of
pension under the Regulation shall be final and
conclusive. (Para 7)

B. The seriousness of the crime is to be
determined not merely with reference to
quantum of sentence but with the nature of the
offence and the degree of involvement of a
government servant therein. (Para 8)

The writ court has not discussed the term 'serious
crime' in the light of the facts of the case in detail. It
has opined that the concerned authority has already
done so. The writ court seems to have been
persuaded by the fact that the petitioner was
found guilty of corruption under the provisions
of the Act, 1988 which for a government
servant was apparently a serious crime. (Para 9)

In the case at hand, the complainant as is borne out
from the appellate court's judgment, was a small
farmer who was claiming his right under the revenue
laws for getting his land measured as the land as
shown in the record was more whereas the land/plot
on the spot was less. The Revenue Inspector
authorized the petitioner-appellant before us, Rasool
Ahmad, who was Lekhpal at the relevant time for
measurement of the allotted plot and the complainant
met the appellant herein several times but the
appellant
demanded
Rs.
400/-
as
bribe
and
ultimately, he agreed for an amount of Rs. 300/-.
(Para 11)

The petitioner was a government servant who was
under obligation to perform his duty but he
demanded bribe for carrying out his rightful
obligations. The seriousness of the offence is
apparent on the face of the record. Merely
because, the concerned authority who has
passed the order u/Regulation 351 as well as
the writ court have not discussed this aspect of
the matter in detail, there can be no ground for
allowing the appeal of the appellant against
the order of the writ court. The facts of the
case speak for themselves and do not need any
further elaboration. (Para 11)

Appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

11 All. Rasool Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
733
departmental proceedings after obtaining a valid
sanction if so permissible in law. But till a valid
sanction
is
granted
for
departmental
proceedings, the directions issued by the learned
Judge for payments of retiral dues, etc. calls for
no interference.

52. Subject to the above, the appeal is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A733
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 360 of 2021

Rasool Ahmad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Anuj Dayal, Manish Srivastava, Mukesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Pension - Corruption -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7
& 13 - Civil Services Regulation - Regulation
351 - Regulation 351 provides that future good
conduct is an implied condition of ever grant of a
pension. The State Government reserve to themselves
the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or
any part of it, if the pensioner be convicted of serious
crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision
of the State Government on any question of
withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of
pension under the Regulation shall be final and
conclusive. (Para 7)

B. The seriousness of the crime is to be
determined not merely with reference to
quantum of sentence but with the nature of the
offence and the degree of involvement of a
government servant therein. (Para 8)

The writ court has not discussed the term 'serious
crime' in the light of the facts of the case in detail. It
has opined that the concerned authority has already
done so. The writ court seems to have been
persuaded by the fact that the petitioner was
found guilty of corruption under the provisions
of the Act, 1988 which for a government
servant was apparently a serious crime. (Para 9)

In the case at hand, the complainant as is borne out
from the appellate court's judgment, was a small
farmer who was claiming his right under the revenue
laws for getting his land measured as the land as
shown in the record was more whereas the land/plot
on the spot was less. The Revenue Inspector
authorized the petitioner-appellant before us, Rasool
Ahmad, who was Lekhpal at the relevant time for
measurement of the allotted plot and the complainant
met the appellant herein several times but the
appellant
demanded
Rs.
400/-
as
bribe
and
ultimately, he agreed for an amount of Rs. 300/-.
(Para 11)

The petitioner was a government servant who was
under obligation to perform his duty but he
demanded bribe for carrying out his rightful
obligations. The seriousness of the offence is
apparent on the face of the record. Merely
because, the concerned authority who has
passed the order u/Regulation 351 as well as
the writ court have not discussed this aspect of
the matter in detail, there can be no ground for
allowing the appeal of the appellant against
the order of the writ court. The facts of the
case speak for themselves and do not need any
further elaboration. (Para 11)

Appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Shivgopal Vs St. of U.P., 2019 (37) LCD 1859 (Para
4)

Present appeal assails order dated 11.08.2021,
passed by writ court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

(C.M. Application No. 127746 of 2021)

1. This is an application seeking
condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. Heard.

3. The cause shown for the delay in filing
the appeal is sufficient. The application is
allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.

(Special Appeal Defective no.360 of 2021)

4. This is an intra-court appeal against the
judgment dated 11.08.2021 passed by the writ
court. The facts of the case in brief are that the
petitioner herein who was working as Lekhpal in
the Revenue Department of Government of
Uttar Pradesh was tried for the offence under
Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ''the Act,
1988') wherein he was convicted by the trial
court vide judgment dated 17.08.2013 and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year
with fine of Rs.2,000/-. He preferred an appeal
against the said judgment under the provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was
dismissed on 06.09.2014. Consequent thereto,
an order was passed under Regulation 351 of the
Civil Services Regulation as applicable in the
State of Uttar Pradesh withholding the entire
pension of the petitioner. This order was dated
25.05.2017 which was communicated to the
petitioner by another order dated 26.05.2017.
Both these orders were put to challenge by the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.7896 (S/S) of
2018. The writ petition has been dismissed vide
order dated 11.08.2021 and it is this judgment
which is the subject matter of this intra-court
appeal. Before the writ court, the case of the
petitioner-appellant was that Regulation 351
Civil Services Regulation applies only in the
case of serious offences and a full bench
judgment of this Court in the case of
''Shivagopal vs. State of U.P.' reported in 2019
(37) LCD 1859 has explained as to what is
meant by the term ''serious crime' as used in
Regulation 351. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon paragraph no.39 of the
said judgment which reads as under:

"39. The expression 'serious crime' has
to be understood in the context of service
jurisprudence involving the government servant.
It may be any act or omission which in the
opinion of the competent authority in serious
enough and calls for punitive action in terms of
Article 351. It has no bearing with the quantum
of sentence but with the nature of the offence
and the degree of involvement of the government
servant in the commission/ omission of the
crime."

5. It is contended that seriousness of the
crime does not depend upon the quantum of
sentence but it is concerned with the nature of
the offence and the degree of involvement of the
government
servant
in
the
commission/
omission of the crime. Learned counsel invited
our attention to the orders which were the
subject matter of the writ petition to contend that
the said order was passed under Regulation 351
only on account of conviction of the petitioner in
the criminal case as referred hereinabove
without considering the seriousness of the crime
which was sine qua non for withholding of
entire pension of the petitioner under Regulation
351. He then took us through the judgment of
the writ court and contended that even the writ
court did not consider the alleged seriousness of
the crime but presumed that the same had been
considered by the competent authority which, in
fact, it had not done. These are the only two
points which have been pressed by learned
counsel for the appellant before us.

6. Regulation 351 reads as under
11 All. Rasool Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
735

"351. Future good conduct is an
implied condition of ever grant of a pension. The
State Government reserve to themselves the
right of withholding or withdrawing a pension
or any part of it, if the pensioner be convicted of
serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct.

The decision of the State Government
on any question of withholding or withdrawing
the whole or any part of pension under this
regulation shall be final and conclusive."

7. Regulation 351 provides that future
good conduct is an implied condition of ever
grant of a pension. The State Government
reserve to themselves the right of withholding or
withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the
pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be
guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the
State
Government
on
any
question
of
withholding or withdrawing the whole or any
part of pension under the Regulation shall be
final and conclusive.

8. Paragraph 39 of the full bench decision
in Shivagopal's case (supra) has already been
quoted by us hereinabove, according to which,
the seriousness of the crime is to be determined
not merely with reference to quantum of
sentence but with the nature of the offence and
the degree of involvement of a government
servant therein.

9. When we peruse the orders passed by
the concerned authority forfeiting the entire
pension of the petitioner, we do not find a
detailed and reasoned consideration as to the
seriousness of the crime and the said order
proceeds on the premise of his conviction under
the Act, 1988. Possibly, the fact that the
petitioner was a government servant, a Lekhpal,
who had taken bribe from a small farmer and
was convicted by the trial court prevailed upon
the concerned authority in passing the said order
but the authority should have discussed the
matter in the light of the term ''serious crime' as
used in Regulation 351 in greater detail than
what has been done. Thereafter, when we peruse
the order of the writ court, we find that the writ
court has also not discussed the term ''serious
crime' in the light of the facts of the case in
detail. It has opined that the concerned authority
has already done so. The writ court also seems
to have been persuaded by the fact that the
petitioner was found guilty of corruption under
the provisions of the Act, 1988 which for a
government servant was apparently a serious
crime.

10. Now, when we consider the conviction
of the petitioner-appellant under Section 7 read
with Section 13 of the Act, 1988 in the light of
the appellate court's judgment as the trial court
judgment is not before us and has not been filed,
we find that the complainant Vedram moved an
application before the Superintendent of Police,
Prevention
of
Corruption
Organization,
Lucknow, alleging therein that he is a small
farmer in Village Virahimpur, Police Station
Pali, Tehsil Sahabad District Hardoi. He got an
allotment of land bearing no.154. The area of the
allotted land was lesser than the mentioned in
the
document,
therefore,
he
moved
an
application for its inspection and measurement
before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sahabad.
On
this
application,
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate, Sahabad, ordered for measurement
of the said plot to Tehsildar, Sahabad. On
05.12.1992, the complainant again moved an
application to this effect to the Tehsildar
Sahabad on which the Bhumi Nirikshak was
directed to measure the land and to handover the
possession of the land to the complainant. On
05.12.1992, Bhumi Nirikshak authorized the
appellant Rasool Ahmad, who was Lekhpal at
the relevant time for the measurement of the
allotted plot and the complainant several times
met Rasool Ahmad but he made a demand of
Rs.400/- as bribe and ultimately he agreed for an
amount of Rs.300/-. The complainant, in the
presence of one Avadhesh Singh and Rampal,
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
gave Rs.100/- to the appellant about one and half
month prior to the incident. Even thereafter he
continued his demand for remaining bribe of
Rs.200/- and declined to measure the plot unless
the said amount is paid to him. The complainant
was not willing to give the bribe, therefore, he
reported this matter to the Superintendent of
Police, Prevention of Corruption Organization,
Lucknow, and thereafter, a trap was laid after
completing all formalities. On 30.03.1993 near
sweat shop of Jaideo Pandit situated in Tehsil
Sahabad, the present appellant was arrested in
trap proceedings and four treated notes of
Rs.50/-
each
were
recovered
from
his
possession. The post trap formalities were also
completed. After investigation of the case, the
charge sheet was filed against the appellant.
Thereafter, the trial was held in which the
offence with which the petitioner was charged
under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Act,
1988, was proved. The appeal against the said
conviction has been dismissed as already
noticed. We may mention at this stage that as
per appellate court's judgment dated 06.09.2014,
learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant did
not press the appeal on merits but contended that
the incident had taken place in the year 1993 and
the appellant has already undergone the trauma
of criminal appeal for about 21 years, he was
aged 65 years, the only allegation is of receiving
bribe of Rs.200/-, a petty amount, for which the
appellant has already undergone detention of
about two months and in these circumstances it
was submitted that the appellant may be
sentenced with the period already undergone by
him. The contention was repelled by the
appellate court and his conviction as also
sentence by the trial court was maintained in
appeal.

11. The State of Uttar Pradesh is largely an
agrarian State. Lekhpals have been assigned
duties under the revenue laws relating to
measurement etc of land. They provide requisite
assistance to higher authorities in this regard.
Most of the farmers in the State are small or
marginal. In the case at hand, the complainant as
is borne out from the appellate court's judgment,
was a small farmer who was claiming his right
under the revenue laws for getting his land
measured as the land as shown in the record was
more whereas the land/ plot on the spot was less.
The Revenue Inspector authorized the petitionerappellant before us, Rasool Ahmad, who was
Lekhpal at the relevant time for measurement of
the allotted plot and the complainant met the
appellant herein several times but the appellant
demanded Rs.400/- as bribe and ultimately, he
agreed for an amount of Rs.300/-. It has come in
the order of the appellate court in the criminal
appeal that the complainant in the presence of
one Avadhesh Singh and Rampal gave Rs. 100/-
to the appellant. Even thereafter the appellant
continued to demand the remaining bribe of
Rs.200/- and declined to measure the plot unless
the said amount is paid to him. The court only
empathizes with the humiliation and trauma
which the said small farmer/ complainant must
have undergone that too for claiming his rights
under the law and not for any illegal act. The
petitioner was a government servant who was
under obligation to perform his duty but he
demanded bribe for carrying out his rightful
obligations. The seriousness of the offence is
apparent on the face of the record. Merely
because, the concerned authority who has passed
the order under Regulation 351 has not
discussed this aspect of the matter in detail and
the writ court may also not have done so
accordingly, can be no ground for allowing the
appeal of the appellant against the order of the
writ court. The facts of the case speak for
themselves and do not need any further
elaboration. Corruption is the bane of our
society. One who suffers corruption alone can
feel the pinch of it. As already stated, small
farmers, when they are compelled to pay bribe in
the manner in which the appellant compelled the
complainant, it is most unfortunate thing to
happen even after 75 years of independence.
11 All. Abhishek Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
737
Seriousness of the crime being self-evident and
apparent and as we have considered the same,
none of the grounds raised by the appellant's
counsel before us persuade us to take any other
view of the matter.

12. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
----------
(2021)11ILR A737
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMRA OJHA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 343 of 2021
connected with other cases

Abhishek Srivastava & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Sri Naresh Chandra
Rajvanshi(Senior Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Education
-
Appointment/Selection
-
Challenge
to
answer key - The writ petitions were filed to
challenge the answer key published on 5.8.2020
in reference to the examination conducted on
6.1.2019. It was for the selection on the post of
Assistant Teacher. Taking into consideration the
limited jurisdiction of the High Court, the learned
Single Judge did not find a case for acceptance of
the arguments for challenge to the answer key.
Present appeals have been preferred to challenge
the judgment and have been pressed by the
appellants in reference to correctness of the
answer of six questions leaving others. In one
appeal, argument has been raised in reference to
two questions alleging them to be out of syllabus.
(Para 5, 6)
Jurisdiction of this Court to examine the
correctness of the answer - After the judgment
in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (infra), the
jurisdiction of this Court is very limited in the
case.

The law on the subject is quite clear and few
significant conclusions are: (Para 7)

(i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer
sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of
right, then the authority conducting the examination
may permit it;

(ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing
an examination does not permit re-evaluation
or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from
prohibiting it) then the Court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated
very clearly, without any "inferential process of
reasoning or by a process of rationalisation"
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a
material error has been committed; (Para 7, 8,
13, 17)

(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it
has no expertise in the matter and academic
matters are best left to academics;

(iv) The Court should presume the correctness
of the key answers and proceed on that
assumption; and (Para 7, 9)

(v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should
go to the examination authority rather than to
the candidate. (Para 7, 9, 19, 23, 31, 34)

The Hon'ble Court observes that only one question
(Question No. 60) out of 6, deserves consideration
and a prima facie case is made out by the appellants
as none of the options provided the correct answer,
but for the remaining 5 questions appeals would be
governed by the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Ran Vijay Singh (infra). (Para 35, 37, 42)

As far as 2 questions being out of syllabus are
concerned Court observed that according to the
appellants, both the questions were not falling in the
subject of Chemistry and, therefore, they were out of
syllabus but the fact that syllabus was not only having
subject of Chemistry but 'General Science and Science