# Ravikant Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 24
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 9755 of 2024
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravikant-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54654
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Departmental Disciplinary
Proceedings
-
Suspension
-
Judicial
Review of suspension order - Constitution
of India,1950 - Article 226 - Order of
suspension can be interfered where it is
shown that the said order has been
passed without jurisdiction or no inquiry is
contemplated or the charges levelled
against
the
delinquent
government
servant are vague and bald and even
proved will not entail a major penalty.
Merely because the government servant
feels that the allegations are false will not
be a ground in itself for this Court to
assume the jurisdiction and to embark on
an inquiry to determine the veracity of the
allegations
levelled
against
the
government servant. In the instant case,
the Court found that the allegations were
11 All. Ravikant Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
25
serious, which required inquiry, and the
petitioner
would
have
sufficient
opportunity to place all the material
before the Inquiry Officer in his defence
and also would have a chance of personal
hearing before the prescribed authority.
(Para 12, 14)

A. Civil Law - Initiation of the inquiry
proceedings on the basis of an unverified
complaint without supporting affidavit -
Government Order dated 9th May, 1997 -
G.O. dated 09.05.1997 provides that a
complaint which is not supported by an
affidavit would be unactionable. Held : An
affidavit
is
required
along
with the
complaint where the allegations levelled
against the government servant were in
the personal opinion and knowledge of the
person
making
the
said
allegation.
However if the allegations levelled against
the delinquent government servant are
otherwise verifiable from the government
records or from the records then there
would not be any need for obtaining an
affidavit in support of the allegations. If
the
allegations
are
preceded
by
a
preliminary inquiry then the complaint
itself loses its relevance as the decision
making authority proceeds further on the
basis of preliminary inquiry report. (Para
16, 17, 18)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
It is only when the answer to all these three
questions is in the affirmative that the
Validation Act can be held to be effective
and the consequences flowing from the
adverse pronouncement of the Court held
to have been neutralised. Decisions of this
Court in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v.
Broach Borough Municipality [(1969) 2
SCC 283] , Hari Singh v. Military Estate
Officer [(1972) 2 SCC 239] , Madan
Mohan Pathak v. Union of India [(1978) 2
SCC 50 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 103] , Indian
Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala [(1996) 7
SCC 637] , Meerut Development Authority
v. Satbir Singh [(1996) 11 SCC 462] and
ITW Signode India Ltd. v. CCE [(2004) 3
SCC 48] fall in that category."

69. Another aspect which is worth
noticing is that in Clause 7 of the
Government Order, a further prescription
has been made for determination of junior
most teacher. It stipulates that seniority
would be determined on the basis of length
of service in a particular district and where
it is same, would be determined on the
basis of date of birth.

70. The same appears to be in stark
contrast to determination of seniority of
teachers under Rule 22 of the Service Rules of
1981, whereby seniority is required to be
determined according to the order in which the
names appear in the select list prepared in terms
of Rule 17 or 17 (A) or 18 as the case may be.

71. So far as the aspect of cut off date
challenged in the aforesaid government order
and circular is concerned, this Court is not
adverting to the same since this aspect has
already been considered in the Division
Bench Judgment of Neerja (supra).

72. In view of aforesaid discussion, it
is evident that the impugned Clauses of the
Government Order dated 26.06.2024 and
the
Circular
dated
28.06.2024
are
manifestly arbitrary and, therefore, the
Clauses 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the aforesaid
Government Order and Circular are hereby
quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari.
Accordingly,
above
writ
petitions succeed and are allowed. Parties
to bear their own costs.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 24
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 9755 of 2024

Ravikant Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anuj Kudesia, Surya Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Departmental Disciplinary
Proceedings
-
Suspension
-
Judicial
Review of suspension order - Constitution
of India,1950 - Article 226 - Order of
suspension can be interfered where it is
shown that the said order has been
passed without jurisdiction or no inquiry is
contemplated or the charges levelled
against
the
delinquent
government
servant are vague and bald and even
proved will not entail a major penalty.
Merely because the government servant
feels that the allegations are false will not
be a ground in itself for this Court to
assume the jurisdiction and to embark on
an inquiry to determine the veracity of the
allegations
levelled
against
the
government servant. In the instant case,
the Court found that the allegations were
11 All. Ravikant Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
25
serious, which required inquiry, and the
petitioner
would
have
sufficient
opportunity to place all the material
before the Inquiry Officer in his defence
and also would have a chance of personal
hearing before the prescribed authority.
(Para 12, 14)

A. Civil Law - Initiation of the inquiry
proceedings on the basis of an unverified
complaint without supporting affidavit -
Government Order dated 9th May, 1997 -
G.O. dated 09.05.1997 provides that a
complaint which is not supported by an
affidavit would be unactionable. Held : An
affidavit
is
required
along
with the
complaint where the allegations levelled
against the government servant were in
the personal opinion and knowledge of the
person
making
the
said
allegation.
However if the allegations levelled against
the delinquent government servant are
otherwise verifiable from the government
records or from the records then there
would not be any need for obtaining an
affidavit in support of the allegations. If
the
allegations
are
preceded
by
a
preliminary inquiry then the complaint
itself loses its relevance as the decision
making authority proceeds further on the
basis of preliminary inquiry report. (Para
16, 17, 18)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Deepak Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors (Writ A
No. 4054 of 2022)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned
counsel for petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has challenged the order
dated
21.09.2024
passed
by
District
Development Officer, Sitapur whereby the
petitioner
has
been
placed
under
suspension.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that petitioner was
appointed
on
the
post
of
Village
Development Officer and assigned his
duties in Block - Kasmanda, District
Sitapur on 10.10.2018 thereafter he has
been transferred to Block - Mehmoodabad,
District - Sitapur and he joined his duties
on 05.07.2023.

4. While discharging his duties, certain
complaints were made on the basis of
which a three Member Committee was
constituted which submitted its report on
23.08.2024. Relying on the reports of
three Member Committee by means of
impugned order, the petitioner has been
placed under suspension in contemplation
of the departmental proceedings.

5. A perusal of the impugned order
would indicate that the first charge relates
to work conducted under Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee
Scheme in construction of Shahid Bhagat
Singh Amrit Sarovar at village Panchayat
Rajparapur, Block Mehmoodabad, District
Sitapur where the allegation is that in fact
the work which was shown to have been
completed in the records, was never
undertaken, and the work being done under
the supervision of the petitioner he directly
responsible for the same. The second
charge relates to the payment pertaining to
an amount of Rs. 1459558.00/- the bills of
which were uploaded for payment while in
fact the bills were never verified by the
petitioner in his capacity as Village
Development Officer, Mehmoodabad and
accordingly the petitioner has been charged
for attempting to make payments for which
the bills were never verified by him.
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that a bare perusal of
the order of suspension and perusal of the
charges it has been stated that they are false
and vague and with regard to the
expenditure vouchers of Rs. 1459658.00/-
it was stated that the said bills were
uploaded by the Gram Rojgar Sewak
without getting the same approved from the
petitioner and when the petitioner informed
about this fact to the authorities response
was sought from The Gram Rojgar Sewak,
who in his reply dated 23.09.2024 has
admitted that due to his fault the
expenditure has been uploaded without
verification, and therefore submitted that
no further enquiry deserves to be proceeded
with when the Gram Rojgar Sewak has
admitted his fault.

7. It has further been submitted that
the work was duly undertaken and
completed
which
according
to
three
Member Committee was never undertaken
and the said allegation itself is false and
accordingly there is no reason to proceed
against the petitioner in the present case
inquiry proceedings and further there was
no occasion for the respondents to place the
petitioner under suspension. It has been
further submitted that inquiry proceedings
have been initiated on the basis of a
complaint which was never supported by
an
affidavit
and
according
to
the
Government Order dated 9th May, 1997 no
such inquiry could have been initiated and
therefore the entire proceedings are illegal
and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.

8.Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand has opposed the writ petition.
Based on written instructions, he has
submitted that number of bills and
vouchers were duly approved by the
petitioner. It was further stated that the
allegations against the petitioner are serious
in nature and may entail a major penalty
and consequently there is no infirmity in
the order of suspension and prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.

9. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

10. A perusal of the narration of
allegations against the petitioner which
have been mentioned in impugned order of
suspension would indicate that certain
complaints have been received against the
petitioner on the basis of which a Three
Member Committee was constituted where
it was found that for the construction of
Shahid Bhagat Singh Amrit Sarovar
various works which are ought to have
been undertaken and completed were never
initiated and accordingly the petitioner who
was the person responsible for the said
work and was responsible for the material
lapses which have surfaced as per the Three
Member Inquiry Committee report.

11. With regard to the verification of
bills which were uploaded is a disputed
question of fact as the petitioner submits
that he has never verified the said bills
which were uploaded by the Gram Rojgar
Sewak while the State claims to have
sufficient materials indicating that the
petitioner had in fact verified the said bills
and after uploading of the said bills, the
natural consequence would be the payment
of the said bills, but this fact came to the
knowledge of the authorities through a
complaint stating that efforts were being
made to have the bills paid despite the fact
that no work was done nor was the bills
verified.

12. Be that as it may, this court would
not go into the disputed question of fact in
11 All. Ravikant Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
27
a writ petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India challenging the order
of suspension. The order of suspension can
be interfered with in a very limited grounds
where it is shown that the said order has
been passed without jurisdiction or no
inquiry is contemplated or the charges
levelled against the delinquent government
servant are vague and bald and even proved
will not entail a major penalty. Merely
because the government servant feels that
the allegations are false will not be a
ground in itself for this Court to assume the
jurisdiction and to embark on an inquiry to
determine the veracity of the allegations
levelled against the government servant.

13. It is the duty of the prescribed
disciplinary authority to give a charge-sheet
to the government servant who in turn
would give a reply and after following due
procedure prescribed and following the
principle of natural justice, a finding must
be recorded with regard to the guilt of the
government servant and also whether the
charges are proved or not. This Court
would not prejudge the issue merely
because
the
order
of
suspension
is
challenged before this Court assailing the
allegations levelled against him. Even
otherwise, the order of suspension does not
contain the compendium of charges and
merely because there is a reference to the
nature of allegation cannot be sufficient for
this Court to embark upon testing the
veracity of the allegations levelled against
the delinquent government servant. All
these matters are to be dealt with by the
Inquiry
Officer
during
the
inquiry
proceedings.

14. This Court has satisfied itself
about the nature of allegations and finds
that the allegations are serious which
require inquiry, and the petitioner would
have sufficient opportunity to place all the
material before the Inquiry Officer in his
defence and also he would have a chance of
personal hearing before the prescribed
authority.

15. Accordingly, this Court is of the
considered view that merely because the
order of suspension has been challenged
this Court would not arrogate to itself the
power and jurisdiction vested in the
disciplinary authority.

16. With regard to the contention that
the inquiry proceedings have been initiated
on the basis of a unverified complaint
without
supporting
an
affidavit
and
therefore the enquiry itself is illegal and
arbitrary. Though in the Government Order
dated 9th May, 1997, it has been provided
that a complaint which not supported by an
affidavit would be unactionable, this Court
had duly consider the aforesaid government
order in the case of Deepak Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.
4054 of 2022) and it was observed that if
the
allegations
levelled
against
the
delinquent
government
servant
are
otherwise verifiable from the government
records or from the records then there
would not be any need for obtaining an
affidavit in support of the allegations and
proceeded to observe that an affidavit
would certainly be required along with the
complaint where the allegations levelled
against the government servant were in the
personal opinion and knowledge of the
person making the said allegation.

17. The Government Order cannot be
read as to prevent an inquiry in a case
where on the face of it a government
servant
may
be
culpable
for
misappropriation
and
other
related
allegations which can be verified from
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public records without resorting to the
personal knowledge of the person making
such a complaint. In the present case, a
perusal of the allegations levelled in the
impugned order of suspension it has
abundantly clear that matters pertaining to
completion of government work and
verifying bills for payment are in domain of
public documents and these charges can be
verified from public records and merely
because a complaint is not supported by an
affidavit would not aid the petitioner in
preventing the inquiry proceedings against
him.

18. This Court is also of the
considered view that in case the allegations
are preceded by a preliminary inquiry then
the complaint itself loses its relevance as the
decision making authority proceeds further
on the basis of preliminary inquiry report. In
case, in the preliminary inquiry report, the
allegations
are
found
to
be
correct,
recommendation is made for a regular
disciplinary proceeding against a person
whose name has surfaced to be involved in
the preliminary inquiry. In such a situation, it
cannot be said that the inquiry would be
conducted on the basis of an anonymous
complaint which is not supported by an
affidavit. Therefore, the status of complaint is
merely an information on the basis of which a
preliminary inquiry is conducted and further
proceedings are conducted based on the
recommendations of the preliminary inquiry
report. Accordingly, this Court does not agree
with the arguments raised by learned counsel
of the petitioner that the inquiry proceedings
should be set aside merely on account of the
fact that the complaint in the present case is
not supported by an affidavit.

19. In light of the above, this Court
does not find any merit in the contentions
and the grounds raised by the petitioner.
The writ petition being devoid of merits is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 28
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 9965 of 2024

Ram Tirath Pno. 802031471 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
A. Civil Law - Service Law - Disciplinary
Proceedings and Criminal Proceedings -
Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings - Effect
- Disciplinary proceedings and criminal
proceedings are distinct and separate and
they do not bar each other. In case an
employee is punished in departmental
proceedings, it would have no bearing
upon the criminal trial even if the
allegations are the same and, vis-à-vis, in
case an employee is acquitted in the
criminal case, it would not have any
bearing on the disciplinary proceedings.
Each proceeding proceeds on the evidence
and
material
adduced
before
the
respective authorities. Mere acquittal in
the criminal case will not diminish, reduce,
or extinguish the punishment granted in a
disciplinary proceeding. (Para 10)
B. Complaint was made by the petitioner's
wife alleging that he had married again
during the lifetime of his first wife. On her
complaint, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against wherein the charge of
bigamy was found proved and, by means
of order dated 18.01.2010, the petitioner