# Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 735
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-13
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 18438 of 2022
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51968
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Service Law - U.P. Police Officers of the
Subordinate Ranks (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 - Rules 20, 21, 23 & 24 -
Appeal against punishment - Scope -
Jurisdiction of appellate authority - Reappreciation of evidence - Permissibility -
Whether Pradeep Kumar Asthana's case
hold good law - Held, the appellate
authority
has
been
given
complete
jurisdiction to re-appeciate the entire
evidence available in the file of the
disciplinary proceedings and thereafter to
nullify, reduce, affirm and enhance the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority - Once the appellate authority
has power to re-appreciate the entire
evidence and entire evidence is available
before it, it would not be in the fitness of
things to remit the matter to disciplinary
authority but it would be appropriate for
the appellate authority to re-appreciate
evidence available on record and after
recording reasons to sustain the order
passed by the disciplinary authority -
Division Bench held the ratio laid down in
Pradeep Kumar Asthana's case erroneous.
(Para 18, 21 and 26)

B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, extent of
applicability - Held, the provisions made in
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not
stricto sensu applicable in the disciplinary
matters of the police officers as they are
governed by the provisions made in the
Rules of 1991, but the texture of appellate
jurisdiction and the scope of the appellate
authority can easily be understood if the
provisions made in the Rules of 1991 are
seen in the light of the aforesaid provisions
made in the Code of Civil Procedure - The
scope of the appellate authority under the
Rules of of 1991 is almost identical to that
of the scope available with the appellate
court in terms of Section 107 of the Code of
Civil Procedure - The provisions made in
the Rules of 1991 itself provide that the
powers of the appellate authority and the
powers of the disciplinary authority are coextensive. (Para 25)

Division bench decided the issue framed by
Single Judge and remitted the matter. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,936 of 40,498. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39936 for what follows._

5 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
735
suffer either on account of the inaction or
lethargy of the Selection Board, or the
District Inspector of Schools or their
callousness in selecting the appropriate
institution to place the petitioner while
allocating. If the institution, where the
petitioner was first allocated, had not
resisted her appointment or the District
Inspector of Schools had enforced it, she
would have joined well before the cut-off
date under the Government Order dated
28th March, 2005, introducing a new
pension scheme. The petitioner's rights
cannot turn upon mere fortune dependent
upon a chance of her date of joining being
placed on the right side of the cut-off date. A
crystallized right under the statute must
move on surer ground about time when it
comes into effect. It cannot be made
dependent upon inaction or lethargy of
Authorities about enforcement, or on the
correctness of their choice to realize that
right for the petitioner.

16. This Court is, therefore, of
opinion that the petitioner would be entitled
to trace her rights, as already said, either to
the date when the allocation order was
issued on 1.12.2004 or at any time before
25.1.2005, when the District Inspector of
Schools, Meerut referred the matter to the
Secretary of the Selection Board to allocate
another college in same district or another
district for the petitioner. The petitioner's
right would, therefore, be traceable to a
point of time, well before the cut-off date;
not after it, when, in fact, she succeeded in
securing an appointment letter from the
allocated college after failing on two
occasions, resisted by managements."

25. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner also pressed in aid the decision
of this Court in Mahesh Narayan and
others v. State of U.P. and others, 2020
(4) ADJ 172, which I have relied upon in
Nirupama Malviya, but that too was a
case of inaction by the respondents that
delayed
the
petitioner
in
securing
appointment before the cut-off date came
for enforcement of the Contributory
Pension Scheme. It was not at all a case,
like the present one, where there has not
only
been
utter
inaction
on
the
petitioner's part to enforce his rights, but
also positive acts of election, accepting
the terms of the appointment letter, that
placed the petitioner under the regime of
the Defined Contributory Retirement
Benefit Scheme.

26. In the considered opinion of this
Court, no case for interference, therefore, is
made out.

27. This writ petition fails and is
dismissed.

28. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 735
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 18438 of 2022

Ravi Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Atipriya Gautam, Sri Devesh Mishra, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Service Law - U.P. Police Officers of the
Subordinate Ranks (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 - Rules 20, 21, 23 & 24 -
Appeal against punishment - Scope -
Jurisdiction of appellate authority - Reappreciation of evidence - Permissibility -
Whether Pradeep Kumar Asthana's case
hold good law - Held, the appellate
authority
has
been
given
complete
jurisdiction to re-appeciate the entire
evidence available in the file of the
disciplinary proceedings and thereafter to
nullify, reduce, affirm and enhance the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority - Once the appellate authority
has power to re-appreciate the entire
evidence and entire evidence is available
before it, it would not be in the fitness of
things to remit the matter to disciplinary
authority but it would be appropriate for
the appellate authority to re-appreciate
evidence available on record and after
recording reasons to sustain the order
passed by the disciplinary authority -
Division Bench held the ratio laid down in
Pradeep Kumar Asthana's case erroneous.
(Para 18, 21 and 26)

B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, extent of
applicability - Held, the provisions made in
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not
stricto sensu applicable in the disciplinary
matters of the police officers as they are
governed by the provisions made in the
Rules of 1991, but the texture of appellate
jurisdiction and the scope of the appellate
authority can easily be understood if the
provisions made in the Rules of 1991 are
seen in the light of the aforesaid provisions
made in the Code of Civil Procedure - The
scope of the appellate authority under the
Rules of of 1991 is almost identical to that
of the scope available with the appellate
court in terms of Section 107 of the Code of
Civil Procedure - The provisions made in
the Rules of 1991 itself provide that the
powers of the appellate authority and the
powers of the disciplinary authority are coextensive. (Para 25)

Division bench decided the issue framed by
Single Judge and remitted the matter. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

1. Writ A No. 18299 of 2021; Pradeep Kumar
Asthana Vs St. of U.P. & ors.decided on
03.01.2022

2. U.O.I.& ors.Vs Mohan Lal Kapoor; AIR 1974 SC
87

3. Raj Kishore Jha Vs St. of Bihar & ors.; (2003)
11 SCC 519

4. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department Works Contract and Lease, Kota Vs
Shukla and brothers; (2010) 4 SCC 785

5. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs U.O.I.& ors.; (1995) 6 SCC
749

6. St. Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs Nemi Chand
Nalwaya; (2011) 4 SCC 584

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ishir Shripat, Advocate
holding brief of Ms. Atipriya Gautam,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
along with Sri Laxmikant Trigunait and Sri
Irfan Ahmad Malik, learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the
connected writ petitions, Sri Sushil Kumar
Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel,
Sri Ram Swaroop Umrao, learned Standing
Counsel and Sri Girish Chand Tiwari,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition
has assailed the order dated 02.04.2022
passed by the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Aligarh whereby punishment of
'censure' has been imposed against him.
Petitioner through this writ petition has also
challenged the order dated 07.07.2022
whereby appeal filed against punishment
order dated 2.04.2022 has been rejected and
5 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
737
further order dated 13.09.2022 whereby
revision filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed.

3. This writ petition was earlier heard
by a learned Single Judge of this Court and
the order dated 1.12.2022 has been passed
whereby learned Single Judge expressed his
respectful disagreement with the ratio of a
judgement and order dated 03.01.2022
rendered by another learned Single Judge of
this Court in Writ-A No. 18299 of 2021
(Pradeep Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P.
and others) and thereby had framed the
issue and requested Hon'ble The Chief
Justice of this Court to constitute a larger
Bench for deciding the said issue.

4. Learned Single Judge vide his order
dated 1.12.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 18438
of 2022 had framed the following issue to be
decided by the larger Bench:-

"Whether the power of the
appellate authority under the U.P. Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are
confined to the powers of the judicial review
or the appellate authority can exercise the
original powers and take a decision which
are in the domain of the disciplinary
authority while exercising the appellate
powers?"

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated
1.12.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this
Court has constituted this Division Bench
for deciding the aforesaid issue framed by
the learned Single Judge.

6. Brief facts culled out from the writ
petition are that the petitioner while posted
as Constable in the Traffic Police at District
Aligarh in the year 2021 was prima facie
found to have committed misconduct
therefore,
preliminary
inquiry
was
conducted in the matter and thereafter
disciplinary
authority
i.e.
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Aligarh issued a
show-cause notice under Rule 14(2) of the
U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate
Ranks (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1991')
whereby petitioner was required to submit
his reply explaining therein as to why minor
punishment of 'censure' as provided under
Rule 4 of the Rules of 1991 may not be
imposed against him. Petitioner submitted
his reply to the show-cause notice on
04.03.2022 wherein he took various grounds
to
prove
his
innocence.
Ultimately
disciplinary
authority
i.e.
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Aligarh passed the
order on 02.04.2022 wherein it has been
recorded that the explanation given by the
petitioner is not satisfactory and he could not
give any such fact in his reply which is
worth consideration and thereby minor
punishment of 'censure' has been imposed
against the petitioner.

7.

Petitioner
challenged
the
punishment order dated 02.04.2022 by filing
appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991
and he took the ground in appeal that the
Disciplinary Authority has not considered
his reply to the show-cause notice and the
punishment order is absolutely unreasoned
and non-speaking. The appellate authority,
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule 20
of the Rules of 1991 considered the entire
evidence and also considered the reply
submitted by the petitioner to the showcause notice dated 16.02.2022 and thereby,
has passed speaking and reasoned order on
07.07.2022 whereby he has affirmed the
punishment order dated 02.04.2022 passed
by the disciplinary authority and has
rejected the appeal. Thereafter petitioner
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
challenged the punishment order dated
02.04.2022 and appellate order dated
07.07.2022 by filing revision under Rule 23
of the Rules of 1991 and the said revision
has also been dismissed.

8. Petitioner in this writ petition has
challenged the punishment order dated
02.04.2022 primarily on the ground that his
reply to the show-cause notice dated
16.02.2022 had not been considered at all
while imposing the minor punishment of
'censure' against him and once reply
submitted by the petitioner has not been
considered and reasons to prove the
misconduct
were
not
recorded,
the
punishment order cannot sustain in the eyes of
law. Petitioner has challenged the appellate
order dated 07.07.2022 primarily on the
ground that the appellate authority in exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction cannot rectify the
errors of the punishment order and thus, the
appellate authority while considering the reply
submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause
notice dated 16.02.2022 and appreciating the
evidence on record, had committed a manifest
error and therefore the appellate order dated
07.07.2022 is unsustainable in the eyes of
law.

9. Petitioner in support of his case
relied on the judgement and order dated
03.01.2022 rendered by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 18299 of
2021 (Pradeep Kumar Asthana Vs. State of
U.P. and Others) wherein it has been held
that if in the punishment order, reasons for
imposing punishment have not been
recorded, then the appellate authority cannot
record the reasons on its own and thereby
affirm the punishment order passed by the
disciplinary authority.

10. Learned Single Judge while
hearing this writ petition considered the
provisions of Rule 20, 21, 23 and 24 of the
Rules of 1991 and thereby came to the
conclusion that the appellate authority can
adjudicate on the issues which are in the
domain of the original disciplinary authority
as while considering the appeal, the
appellate authority has to examine the entire
record available in the file of the disciplinary
proceedings and has to consider the case on
the basis of material available on record.
Thus learned Single Judge has expressed his
respectful disagreement with the ratio of the
decision rendered in the case of Pradeep
Kumar Asthana (Supra) and by framing the
issue for adjudication has referred the matter
to be decided by a larger Bench.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary
authority is under an obligation to consider
the reply submitted by the delinquent
employee to the show-cause notice and
thereafter reasons, in support of the misconduct, are required to be recorded and
only thereafter punishment can be imposed
whereas in the matter of petitioner,
punishment order dated 02.04.2022 is
absolutely silent vis-a-vis the explanation
submitted by the petitioner and also it does
not contain any reason to prove the
misconduct therefore, the punishment order
cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has argued that once the
disciplinary authority has not considered the
explanation
given
by
the
delinquent
employee to the show-cause notice and has
not given any reason in the punishment
order for imposing punishment then the
appellate authority in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction cannot consider the
reply given by the delinquent employee to
the show-cause notice and cannot provide
reasons in support of punishment and
5 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
739
thereby to affirm the punishment order
passed by the disciplinary authority. It has
further been argued that the appellate
authority has to test the punishment order on
its own merits and cannot rectify the
mistakes committed by the disciplinary
authority while passing the punishment
order
whereas
in
the
present
case
punishment order on its face is an
unreasoned order and has been passed
without considering the reply submitted by
the petitioner therefore, the same cannot be
cured and affirmed by the appellate
authority in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, accordingly the appellate order
dated 07.07.2022 cannot sustain in the eyes
of law.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in support of his case has relied on
the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Union of
India and Others Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor
AIR 1974 SC 87, Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State
of Bihar and Others (2003) 11 SCC 519,
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department Works Contract and Lease,
Kota Vs. Shukla and brothers (2010) 4 SCC
785 and has argued that the disciplinary
authority can pass punishment order only
after recording reasons as only from reasons
assigned in the order, it can be inferred that
the disciplinary authority has applied its
mind to reach the conclusion in the form of
punishment and once disciplinary authority
has failed to record reasons in the
punishment order, that defect cannot be
cured by the appellate authority while
deciding the appeal against the punishment
order.

14. Per contra, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
State respondents has contended that from
bare perusal of the provisions made in the
Rules of 1991, it is patently manifest that the
scope of the appeal is the same as of the
original proceedings giving rise to the
punishment order and therefore appellate
authority can appreciate the entire evidence
available in the file of the disciplinary
proceedings and thereby can provide
reasons to support the punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority. It has further
been contended that in the cases where
disciplinary authority has not considered the
explanation submitted by the delinquent
employee to the show cause notice in detail,
the appellate authority while hearing the
appeal can consider the said explanation and
record reasons to support the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority and
thereby can affirm the original punishment
order.

15. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel has argued that from a bare perusal
of the provisions made in the Rules of 1991,
it is patently manifest that powers of the
appellate authority are not confined only to
the powers of judicial review rather the
appellate authority can exercise the original
powers and can take a decision which is in
the domain of the disciplinary authority and
in the present case, the appellate authority
had considered the reply submitted by the
petitioner to the show-cause notice and had
also
given
reasons
to
support
the
punishment imposed against the petitioner
and thereby had affirmed the punishment
order dated 02.04.2022 which is well within
the powers of appellate authority.

16. We have given our thoughtful
consideration
to
the
rival
arguments
advanced by the learned counsels appearing
for the parties. Before proceeding to
consider the issue framed by learned Single
Judge, it is apt to have a brief look over the
provisions made in Rule 20, 21, 23 and 24
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Rules of 1991, therefore, they are
extracted as under:

"Rule 20. Appeals- (1) Every
Police Officer, against whom an order of
punishment mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to
(iii) of Clause (a) and sub-clauses (i) to (iv)
of Clause (b) of Rule 4 shall be entitled to
prefer an appeal against the order of such
punishment to the authority mentioned
below:

(a) to the Police Officer who is the
immediate jurisdictional superior authority
to the Police Officer who passed the order
of punishment;

(b) to the Director-General of
Police who may either decide the appeal
himself or nominate any AdditionalDirector General for deciding it;

(c) to the State Government
against the order passed under Clause (b).

(2) No appeal shall lie against an
order inflicting any of the petty punishments
enumerated in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule
4.

(3) Every officer desiring to prefer
an appeal shall do so separately.

(4) Every appeal, preferred under
these rules shall contain all materials,
statements, arguments relied on by the
Police Officers preferring the appeal, and
shall be complete in itself, but shall not
contain disrespectful or improper language.
Every appeal shall be accompanied by a
copy of final order which is the subject of
appeal.

(5) Every appeal, whether the
appellant is still in service of Government or
not, shall be submitted through the
Superintendent of Police of the district or in
the case of Police Officers not employed in
district work through the head of the office
to which the appellant belongs or belonged.

(6) An appeal will not be
entertained unless it is preferred within
three months from the date on which the
Police Officer concerned was informed of
the order of punishment.

Provided that appellate authority
may, at his discretion, for good cause shown
extended the said period up to six months.

(7) It the appeal preferred does
not comply with the provisions of sub-rule
(4) the appellate authority may require the
appellant to comply with the provisions of
the said sub-rule within one month of the
notice of such order to him and if the
appellant
fails
to
make
the
above
compliance, the appellate authority may
dispose of the appeal in the manner as it
deems fit.

(8) The Director-General or an
Inspector-General may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, either on his own
motion or on request from an appellate
authority before whom the appeal is pending
transfer the same to any other officer of
corresponding rank.

21. Submission of documents
with appeal. (1) When the appellate
authority admits the appeal and sends for
the records all the papers should be
submitted which were considered by the
officer against whose order the appeal is
made including the character roll and
service roll of the officer punished.

(2) Copies of orders passed in
appeal
which
are
furnished
to
the
Superintendent of Police by the appellate
authority shall invariably be accompanied
with the departmental punishment file and
shall be submitted therewith when the
record is called for.

Rule 23-Revision- (1) An officer
whose appeal has been rejected by an
authority subordinate to the Government is
entitled to submit an application for revision
to the superior authority next to the
authority which has rejected his appeal
5 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
741
within three months from the date of
rejection of appeal as mentioned below:

(a) to the Police Officer who is the
immediate jurisdictional superior authority
to the Police Officer who passed the
appellate order.;

(b) to the Director-General of
Police who may either decide the revision
himself or nominate any Additional Director
General for deciding it.

(c) to the State Government
against the order passed under Clause (b).

On such an application, the
powers of revision may be exercised only
when, consequent of flagrant irregularity,
there appears to have been material
injustice or miscarriage of justice.

Provided
that
the
revising
authority may on its own motion call for the
examine the records of any order passed in
appeal against which no revision has been
preferred under this rule for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety
of such order or as to the regularity of such
procedure and pass such order with respect
thereto as it may think fit;

Provided further that no order
under the first proviso shall be made except
after giving the person effected a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(2) The procedure prescribed for
appeal applies also to application for
revision. An application for revision of an
order
rejecting
an appeal
shall
be
accompanied by a copy of the original order
as well as the order of appellate authority.

24. Enhancement of punishment
- A punishment may be enhanced by -

(a) an appellate authority on
appeal; or

(b) any authority superior to the
authority to whom an application will lie, in
exercise of revisionary powers:

Provided that before enhancing
the punishment such authority shall call
upon the officer punished, to show cause
why his punishment should not be so
enhanced, and that an order by such
authority so enhancing a punishment shall
be deemed to be an original order of
punishment."

17. We find that Rule 20(4) of the
Rules of 1991 provides that every appeal
must contain all materials, statements and
arguments relied on by the police office
preferring the appeal. Rule 21 of the Rules
of 1991 further provides that when the
appellate authority admits the appeal and
sends for records, all the papers should be
submitted which were considered by the
officer against whose order appeal is made
including character roll and service roll of
the officer punished. Thus it is patently
manifest that the rule provides that the entire
material available in the file of the
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
delinquent employee must be placed before
the appellate authority for its consideration.
We
further
find
that
Rule
24
(a)
categorically
provides
that
appellate
authority has power to enhance the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority therefore, it is manifest that the
appellate authority can appreciate the entire
evidence and if ultimately reaches to the
conclusion that lesser punishment has been
awarded by the disciplinary authority, it can
enhance the punishment after issuing a
show-cause notice and after considering the
reply of the delinquent employee. Proviso
appended to Rule 24 further provides that
the order passed by the appellate authority
so enhancing the punishment shall be
deemed to be an original order of
punishment.

18. Thus from a conjoint reading of the
Rule 20, 21 and 24 of the Rules of 1991, we
find that the appellate authority has been
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given complete jurisdiction to re-appeciate
the entire evidence available in the file of the
disciplinary proceedings and thereafter to
nullify, reduce, affirm and enhance the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority, This conclusion drawn by us finds
support from the provisions made by the
legislature in Rule 23(1) which provides
remedy of revision and puts restriction that
the revisional power may be exercised
where
in
consequence
of
flagrant
irregularity, there appears to have been
material injustice or miscarriage of justice.

19. We find that legislature in its
wisdom has put conditions/restrictions for
the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under
Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991 whereas there
are no such restrictions in respect of the
exercise
of
appellate
jurisdiction
as
contemplated under Rule 20, 21 and 24 of
the Rules of 1991. Even otherwise, we find
that all along it has been settled proposition
of law that in the disciplinary matters once
the delinquent employee files an appeal then
the appellate authority can re-appreciate the
entire evidence available on record and after
recording its satisfaction, can nullify,
reduce, affirm or enhance the punishment
awarded by the disciplinary authority.

20. Now we proceed to consider as to
whether reasons are required to be recorded
while taking decision by the quasi judicial
authorities. We find that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in catena of judgements
including the judgements, relied on by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
has categorically held that quasi judicial
authorities are required to record reasons to
reach out the conclusion in the order but in
the matters of disciplinary proceedings
against an employee, the appellate authority
has the same scope to re-appreciate the
evidence on record as the disciplinary
authority had, therefore, if the reasons for
imposing punishment have not been
recorded by the disciplinary authority and
ultimately
appellate
authority
while
considering
the
appeal
against
the
punishment order finds that there is
sufficient evidence on record to sustain the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority then the appellate authority would
have two options i.e. either to remit the
matter to the disciplinary authority for
passing a fresh order or to pass order
imposing the same punishment after
considering the reply submitted by the
delinquent employee to the show-cause
notice and after recording reasons to support
the punishment.

21. We also find that it is also a well
settled proposition of law through catena of
judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that once the appellate authority has power
to re-appreciate the entire evidence and
entire evidence is available before it, it
would not be in the fitness of things to remit
the matter to disciplinary authority but it
would be appropriate for the appellate
authority to re-appreciate evidence available
on record and after recording reasons to
sustain the order passed by the disciplinary
authority.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
judgment rendered in the case of B.C.
Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and
others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 has categorically
held that in the disciplinary matters, the
disciplinary authority is the sole judge of the
facts and where appeal is presented against
the
punishment
order,
the
appellate
authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence and the nature of
punishment i.e. appellate authority can reappreciate the evidence available on record
and thereafter on the basis of its own reasons
5 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
743
can nullify, reduce, affirm or enhance the
punishment imposed against the delinquent
employee. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi
(supra) are extracted as under:

"12. Judicial review is not an
appeal from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure
that the individual receives fair treatment
and not to ensure that the conclusion which
the authority reaches is necessarily correct
in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is
conducted on charges of misconduct by a
public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry
was held by a competent officer or whether
rules of natural justice are complied with.
Whether the findings or conclusions are
based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has
jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a
finding of fact or conclusion. But that
finding must be based on some evidence.
Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act
nor proof of fact or evidence as defined
therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding.
When the authority accepts that evidence
and conclusion receives support therefrom,
the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold
that the delinquent officer is guilty of the
charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of
judicial review does not act as appellate
authority to reappreciate the evidence and
to arrive at its own independent findings on
the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere where the authority held the
proceedings against the delinquent officer
in a manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of statutory
rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or
where the conclusion or finding reached by
the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be
such as no reasonable person would have
ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may
interfere with the conclusion or the
finding, and mould the relief so as to make
it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is
the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is
presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to reappreciate the
evidence or the nature of punishment. In a
disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal
evidence and findings on that evidence are
not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or
reliability of evidence cannot be permitted
to be canvassed before Court//Tribunal. In
Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held
at p-728 that if the conclusion, upon
consideration of the evidence reached by the
disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers
from patent error on the face of the record
or based on no evidence at all, a writ of
certiorari could be issued."

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
its judgment rendered in the case of State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi
Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 has
again considered the difference in the power
of judicial review with the courts and the
scope
of
appellate
authority
in
the
disciplinary matters and has held that the
scope of the judicial review with the courts
in the disciplinary matters is very limited
whereas the appellate authority while
deciding the appeal can re-appreciate the
entire evidence available in the file of the
disciplinary proceedings and thereafter by
recording reasons can nullify, reduce, affirm
or enhance the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary
authority.
The
relevant
paragraph of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (supra) is
extracted as under:
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"7. It is now well settled that the
courts will not act as an appellate court and
reassess the evidence led in the domestic
enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that
another view is possible on the material on
record. If the enquiry has been fairly and
properly held and the findings are based on
evidence, the question of adequacy of the
evidence or the reliable nature of the
evidence will not be grounds for interfering
with the findings in departmental enquiries.
Therefore, courts will not interfere with
findings
of
fact
recorded
in
departmental enquiries, except where
such findings are based on no evidence
or where they are clearly perverse. The
test to find out perversity is to see
whether a tribunal acting reasonably
could have arrived at such conclusion or
finding, on the material on record. The
courts will however interfere with the
findings in disciplinary matters, if
principles of natural justice or statutory
regulations have been violated or if the
order
is
found
to
be
arbitrary,
capricious, mala fide or based on
extraneous considerations. (vide B. C.
Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, Union of
India vs. G. Gunayuthan, Bank of India
vs. Degala Suryanarayana and High
Court of Judicature at Bombay vs.
Shahsi Kant S Patil.)"

24. Now we proceed to consider the
provisions made in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 in respect of the scope
of the appellate jurisdiction. For ready
reference, Sections 96 and 107 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are
extracted as under:

"96. Appeal from original
decree .- (1) Save where otherwise
expressly provided in the body of this
Code or by any other law for the time
being in force, an appeal shall lie from
every decree passed by any Court
exercising original jurisdiction to the
Court authorized to hear appeals from
the decisions of such Court

(2) An appeal may lie from an
original decree passed ex parte.

(3)No appeal shall lie from a
decree passed by the Court with the
consent of parties.

(4) No appeal shall lie, except
on a question of law, from a decree in
any suit of the nature cognizable by
Courts of Small Causes, when the
amount or value of the subject-matter of
the original suit does not exceed [ten
thousand rupees.]

x x x x x x x x x x x

107. Powers of appellate Court .-
(1)
Subject
to
such
conditions and
limitations as may be prescribed, an
Appellate Court shall have power-

(a) to determine a case finally;

(b)to remand a case;

(c)to frame issues and refer them
for trial;

(d)to take additional evidence or
to require such evidence to be taken.

(2) Subject as aforesaid, the
Appellate Court shall have the same powers
and shall perform as nearly as may be the
same duties as are conferred and imposed
by the Code on Courts of original
jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted
therein."

25. We find that Section 107(2) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
provides that subject to sub-clause (i),
the appellate court shall have the same
powers and shall perform as nearly as
may be the same duties as are conferred
and imposed by the Code on courts of
original jurisdiction in respect of suits
instituted therein. We are conscious of
5 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
745
the fact that provisions made in the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not stricto
sensu applicable in the disciplinary
matters of the police officers as they are
governed by the provisions made in the
Rules of 1991 but the texture of
appellate jurisdiction and the scope of
the appellate authority can easily be
understood if the provisions made in the
Rules of 1991 are seen in the light of the
aforesaid provisions made in the Code of
Civil Procedure. We are of the view that
the scope of the appellate authority
under the Rules of of 1991 is almost
identical to that of the scope available
with the appellate court in terms of
Section 107 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The provisions made in the
Rules of 1991 itself provide that the
powers of the appellate authority and the
powers of the disciplinary authority are
co-extensive and the appellate authority
possesses jurisdiction to re-appreciate
the entire evidence available on record
and thereafter by recording reasons can
nullify, reduce, affirm or enhance the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority.

26. We are also of the view that by
now, it is well settled proposition of law
that powers of the appellate authority in
the matters of disciplinary proceedings
are much wider than the powers of
judicial review as the appellate authority
is empowered to appreciate entire
evidence
available
on
record
and
thereafter to nullify, reduce, affirm and
enhance the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority. We find that
learned Single Judge while rendering the
judgement and order dated 03.01.2022 in
Writ-A No. 18299 of 2022, Pradeep
Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. and
others has not considered the scope of
the appellate jurisdiction as provided
under the Rules of 1991 and thereby has
erroneously held that in the context of
penalty awarded, it may never be open to
the disciplinary authority to award
penalty and leave it open to the appellate
and higher authority to consider if there
exists any reason to award such penalty.

27. Since the appellate authority
enjoys the same power to appreciate the
entire evidence available on record and
thereafter to record findings in support
of the punishment as is available to the
disciplinary authority therefore, if the
appellate authority finds that reasons are
missing in the punishment order but
there is enough evidence on record to
support the awarded punishment, then
definitely the appellate authority after
considering the reply submitted by the
delinquent employee to the show-cause
notice can record reasons and thereby
can affirm the punishment imposed by
the disciplinary authority.

28. In view of the aforesaid reasons,
our answer to the issue framed by
learned Single Judge is as under:

"The powers of the appellate
authority under the U.P. Police Officers
of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are not
confined only to the powers of judicial
review rather the appellate authority in
exercise of appellate powers can reappreciate the entire evidence available
on record and take decision akin to the
powers available in the domain of the
disciplinary authority.

29. Let this writ petition be placed
before the learned Single Judge for deciding
the matter.
----------
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 5 ILRA 746
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Civil Revision No. 22 of 2022

Mrs. Ameena Jung & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
Faridi Waqf & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Subhash Vidyarthi, Dhruv Mathur, Saud Rais

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, Farhan Habib,
Pranav Agarwal, Pritish Kumar, Shantanu
Gupta, Syed Aftab Ahmad

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908) - Order 1 Rule 10 - Proper and
Necessary
Parties
-
The
Waqf
in
question was a Waqf-Al-Aulad (private
Waqf for the settlor's descendants). The
then Mutawalli, Abdul Jalil Faridi, who
was also a beneficiary, knew his two
sisters,
among
others,
were
direct
beneficiaries.
However,
he
moved
application to delist properties from the
Waqf
Board's
register
without
impleading the beneficiaries in the
proceedings. Held : The revisionists,
being direct beneficiaries and known to
the Mutawalli, were necessary parties..
Revisionists presence before the Waqf
Tribunal
was
both
necessary
and
imperative as it affected the character
and composition of waqf property which
was the corpus of the waqf and was for
the benefit of the beneficiaries. (Para 45)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mst. Peeran Vs Hafiz Mohammad Ishaq, AIR
1966 All 201
2. Abhishek Shukla Vs High Court of Judicature,
AIR 2018 All 32

3. Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC
524

4. Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd Vs
Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd.,
(2010) 7 SCC 417

5. Baluram Vs P. Chellathangam, (2015) 13 SCC 579

6. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath, 1994
1 SCC 1

7. Indian Bank Vs Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
(1996) 5 SCC 550

8. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajendra
Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581

9. K.D. Sharma Vs SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481

10. A.V. Papayya Sastry Vs Government of A.P.,
(2007) 4 SCC 221

11. Ram Chandra Singh Vs Savitri Devi, (2003) 8
SCC 319

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1.