# Santosh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1478
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-26
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 34343 of 2013
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54163
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1478
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 34343 of 2013

Santosh Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether the Court in the present case can interfere with the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings?
(b) Whether on the basis of subsequent acquittal in criminal trial, impugned order (dated 15.05.2013 which
held the correctness of the inquiry report, wherein all charges against petitioner were found proved) can be
set aside?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in
domestic enquiries. The High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in
support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is
accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent?
This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine
whether on that evidence illegally (sic, legally) the impugned conclusion follows or not. (Para 14)

In present case, petitioner was granted ample opportunity to appear and place his case before Inquiry Officer.
Inquiry Officer has submitted a very detailed inquiry report wherein statement of victim girls were recorded
and despite granting various opportunities, he has not availed the same and as such Court is of considered
opinion that, inquiry was conducted after complying principles of natural justice. (Para 11)

After second show cause notice was issued, again petitioner was granted ample opportunities to present his
case, however, he has opted not to appear, therefore, Committee of Management adopted a very detailed
proposal, wherein all materials were mentioned specifically, after detailed consideration. (Para 12)

On basis of directions of this Court, matter was referred to Commission, which has passed impugned order
that outcome of inquiry was against petitioner and punishment was correctly awarded considering nature of
allegations. There is no ground for this Court to disbelieve the statement of victim girls recorded
during inquiry wherein they have supported their respective complaints that petitioner was indulged
in explicit sexual conversation and unwarranted touch with victims. (Para 13)

Therefore, this Court does not find that within very limited scope of interference, outcome of
disciplinary proceedings can be interfered. (Para 14)

B. As per the cardinal principle of law an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance
on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the
proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives. (Para 17)
2 All. Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1479
The first thing is whether acquittal is an honourable acquittal or not? In present case, despite
victims have made categorical statement before trial Court and supported the prosecution case, still only on a
ground that there was an enmity between petitioner and Manager of concerned Committee of Management,
the cogent statement of victim was disbelieved and order of acquittal was granted. (Para 16)

Acquittal in criminal trial would have no bearing on the outcome of disciplinary proceedings and Court also
finds that nature of allegations against petitioner are very serious and which have been proved on basis of
statement of victims which also remained consistent even during criminal trial. The acquittal was not an
honourable acquittal. (Para 18)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Bhupinderpal Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 113 (Para 14)
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S.Samuthiram, 2013 (1) SCC 598 (Para 16)
3. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena, 2021 SCC Online SC 252 (Para 16)
4. Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2025 INSC 554 (Para 17)
5. Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175 (Para 17)
6. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, (2022) 2 SCC 696 (Para 17)

List of Keywords
disciplinary proceedings, suspension, charge sheet, inquiry report, management, service.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Santosh Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s): A.K.S. Parihar, C.S.C., Rajesh Kumar Singh, Vibhanshu Vaibhav

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

1. In the present case, petitioner was appointed a Subject Expert in Jagatpur Inter College,
Jagatpur, Varanasi in the year 2002 and has faced a disciplinary proceedings on basis of a written
complaint made by four girl students about use of sexual explicit language by him and an allegation
of unwarranted physical touch was also made.

2. A show cause notice dated 28.09.2010 was issued to petitioner. Subsequently, he was put
under suspension vide order dated 30.09.2010 which was disapproved vide an order dated
17.06.2011 passed by D.I.O.S., Varanasi. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a charge
sheet dated 03.12.2011 on following four charges :-

"सेवा में,

संतोर् कुमार शमाद कनलकम्बत स०अ०, जगतपुर इण्टर कालेज, जगतपुर, वाराणसी ग्राम-खुलासापुर, पोस्ट-लोहता, कजला-वाराणसी आपके
कवरुद्ध कनम्नकलकखत आरोप लगाये जाते हैं-

आप सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर जगतपुर इण्टर कालेज, जगतपुर, वाराणसी में कायदरत रहे है/थे तथा आपके द्वारा, कवद्यालय की छात्राओं
के साथ अश्लील हरकत, छेडखानी, गाल पकडना, गंदी-गंदी बातें करना, अध्यापक के गररमा के कवपरीत आचरण कवगत काफी कदनों से की जाती रही।
कवद्यालय की छात्राओं ररंकू, पूजा, रेशमा एवं संजू आपके उक्त अमयादकदत व्यवहार से परेशान होकर कवद्यालय के प्रधानाचायद को मौकखक एवं कलकखत रूप
1480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
से क्रमशः 24.09.10 एवं 28.09.2010 को कशकायत की थी इस सम्बन्ध में आपकों आवश्यक स्पष्टीकरण देने हेतु कनदेकशत ककया गया था कजसका
अनुपालन आप द्वारा नहीं ककया गया है। आपका उक्त आचरण अमयादकदत एवं गुरुकुल परम्परा के कवपरीत तथा कवद्यालय का पठन-पाठन कायद को बाकधत
करना रहा है।

आपको एतदद्वारा कनम्नानुसार आरोकपत ककया जाता है-

1. आपके ऊपर यह आरोप है कक आप द्वारा कालेज की छात्रा ररंकू चौरकसया की छात्रा रही और वतदमान समय में कक्षा-12 की छात्रा है
के साथ अश्लील हरकत छेडखानी, दुपट्टा खीच लेना, गाल पकडना तथा उठवा ले जाने की धमकी देना जैसी अमयादकदत कायद ककया गया कजसके कलए आप
दोर्ी है।

साक्ष्य कजन पर आरोप के समथदन में कवचार ककया जाना प्रस्ताकवत है-

क- छात्रा ररंकू का पत्र कदनांक 12.10.11 की छायाप्रकत। संलग्नक संख्या-1

2. आपके ऊपर यह आरोप है कक आप द्वारा कालेज की कक्षा-9 की छात्रा पूजा जो वतदमान समय में कक्षा-10 की छात्रा है के साथ
अश्लील हरकत, गंदी-गंदी बातें करना, गाल पकडना एवं अमयादकदत शब्दों का प्रयोग करने के आप दोर्ी है-

साक्ष्य कजन पर आरोप के समथदन में कवचार ककया जाना प्रस्ताकवत है-

क- छात्रा पूजा का पत्र कदनांक 10-10-2011 की छायाप्रकत। संलग्नक संख्या -2

3. आपके ऊपर यह आरोप है कक आप द्वारा कालेज की कक्षा-7 की छात्रा रेशमा जो वतदमान में कक्षा-8 की छात्रा है के साथ अश्लील
हरकत, गंदी-गंदी बातें करना, गाल पकडना एवं अमयादकदत शब्दों का प्रयोग करने के आप दोर्ी है-

साक्ष्य कजन पर आरोप के समथदन में कवचार ककया जाना प्रस्ताकवत है-

क- छात्रा रेशमा का पत्र कदनांक 12.10.11 की छायाप्रकत। संलग्नक संख्या -3

4. आपके ऊपर यह आरोप है कक आप से मांगे गये स्पष्टीकरण के सम्बन्ध में सत्प्य एवं सम्यक् तथ्य प्रस्तुत न करने के आप दोर्ी है।

साक्ष्य कजन पर आरोप के समथदन में कवचार ककया जाना प्रस्ताकवत है-

क- आप द्वारा कदया गया स्पष्टीकरण। संलग्नक संख्या -4

ख- इन्रजीत प्रसाद, प्रवक्ता अंग्रेजी द्वारा कदया गया पत्र कदनांक 12-10-2011 की छायाप्रकत संलग्नक संख्या -5

ग- जगदीश नारायण, प्रवक्ता, अथदशास्त्र के पत्र कदनांक 13-10-2011 की छायाप्रकत संलग्नक संख्या -6

घ- प्रेम नाथ वमाद, सहायक अध्यापक के पत्र कदनांक 12-10-2011 की छायाप्रकत संलग्नक संख्या -7

ङ- अतुल कुमार कसंह, सहायक अध्यापक के पत्र कदनांक 12-10-2011 की छायाप्रकत संलग्नक संख्या -8
2 All. Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1481

च- राजेन्र प्रसाद, पररचारक के पत्र कदनांक 08-10-2011 की छायाप्रकत संलग्नक संख्या-9

एतद्द्वारा आपसे प्रत्प्येक आरोप के उत्तर में अपने बचाव का कलकखत कववरण कदनांक 26-12-2011 को या इसके पूवद प्रस्तुत करने की
अपेक्षा की जाती है। आपको सचेत ककया जाता है कक यकद अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा कनधादररत समय में आपसे ऐसा कोई कववरण प्राप्त नहीं होता है तो, यह
उपधारणा कक जायेगी कक आपको कुछ नहीं प्रस्तुत करना है और कजसकी कजम्मेदारी आपकी होगी। साथ ही साथ आपसे अधोहस्ताक्षरी को कलकखत रूप में
यह सूकचत करने की अपेक्षा की जाती है कक क्या आप व्यकक्तगत सुनवाई के कलए इच्छुक हैं और यकद आप ककसी साक्षी की परीकक्षत करना या प्रकतपरीक्षा
चाहते हैं तो अपने कलकखत कववरण के साथ उनका नाम, पता एवं साक्ष्य को कजसे प्रत्प्येक ऐसे साक्षी से देने की प्रत्प्याशा की जायेगी, संकक्षप्त कववरण कदनांक
25-12-11 समय 4.00 बजे सायं तक अधोहस्ताक्षरी के कायादलय (भौकतक कवज्ञान प्रयोगशाला कक्ष) में प्रस्तुत करना सुकनकित करें।"

3. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted and a detailed inquiry report dated 12.03.2012 was
submitted wherein all four charges against petitioner were found proved. A copy of inquiry report
was not enclosed along with present writ petition though it was annexed with counter affidavit.
From perusal of inquiry report, it would be clearly evident that it was passed on basis of statement
of victim girls before Inquiry Officer as well as evidence of other witnesses.

4. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued along with copy of Inquiry Report to
petitioner and he was asked to appear and to submit his reply. Finally, the petitioner submitted a
reply to show cause notice on 07.05.2012 though it appears that despite various notices, he has not
appeared in person and accordingly, the Committee of Management adopted the proposal dated
27.05.2012 wherein matter was considered at length and Inquiry Report was accepted. In the
proposal, it was specifically noted that petitioner has intentionally not appeared to submit his stand
on Inquiry Report.

5. Above referred adopted proposal was send to D.I.O.S. concerned for approval, however, by
an order dated 08.08.2012, approval was disapproved. Aforesaid order was thereafter challenged at
behest of Committee of Management by way of filing Writ A No. 42480/2012 which was allowed
vide order dated 28.08.2012 and order dated 08.08.2012 was quashed and it was directed that
D.I.O.S. will transmit entire papers to U.P. Secondary Education Services Board, Allahabad who
will take a decision in accordance with law. For reference, relevant part of said order is quoted
below:-

"After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation, which has so emerged
in the present case, is that the charges levelled against respondent No.4 were serious in nature, and
this Court had passed a precise order that disciplinary proceedings be concluded within two months
and it had been categorically mentioned that respondent No.4 would remain under suspension. The
Committee of Management of the institution thereafter proceeded to undertake disciplinary
proceedings and concluded the same, and thereafter resolution has been passed for dispensing with
the services of respondent No.4 after the report of the Inquiry Officer had been received on
12.03.2012. Respondent No.4 had been given opportunity to show cause vide notice dated
13.04.2012 followed by reminder dated 28.04.2012. It is precise case of the Committee of
Management that respondent No. 4 did not turn up and thereafter o 27.05.2012 resolution had been
passed and entire papers had been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for the purposes of
approval under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, as the termination order cannot be passed
without there being prior approval of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board.
1482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Requirement of forwarding papers to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board is
governed by the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for
Approval or Punishment) Regulation, 1985. In spite of the fact that under the aforementioned U.P.
Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval or Punishment) Regulation,
1985, respondent No.4 had no role to play, even then purported appeal was filed by him before the
District Inspector of Schools, the District Inspector of Schools entertained the said appeal and most
surprisingly thereafter has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 13.08.2012. The District
Inspector of Schools had no authority to go into the validity of the resolution dated 27.05.2012,
inasmuch as authority to examine the validity of the said resolution was within the domain of the
U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, and under clause 5 of the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval or Punishment) Regulation, 1985, the
only option open to the District Inspector of Schools was to transmit the entire papers to the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection Board and in case there was any shortcoming in the
documents so submitted, the only course open to the District Inspector of Schools was that he could
have made a note thereof and forwarded the same to the U.P. Secondary Education Services
Selection Board. In the present case, the District Inspector of Schools deliberately deliberated upon
the resolution passed by the Committee of Management and has given his own findings. This
exercise undertaken by the District Inspector of Schools is totally beyond his competence and
reflects his unawareness of statutory provisions, as in the garb of deciding appeal totally
unwarranted order has been passed. While exercising the authority under Section 21 of U.P. Act
No. 5 of 1982 even as per the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission
(Procedure for Approval or Punishment) Regulation, 1985, the U.P. Secondary Education Services
Board is empowered to call for the records from the Management, as such the District Inspector of
Schools has totally misused his authority in the present case while proceeding to pass the impugned
order.

Sri R. K. Ojha's submission, that proceedings is bad, has to be examined by the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection Board and not by this Court, and here the only question is
qua the exercise of authority by District Inspector of Schools.

Consequently, present writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned
order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi is hereby quashed and
set aside. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to transmit the entire papers to the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Board, Allahabad within one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order, and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Board, Allahabad is
directed to deal with the same and take appropriate decision on the same, in accordance with law,
by means of reasoned and speaking order, within next two months, after taking view point of the
Committee of Management of the institution as well as respondent No. 4."

6. In aforesaid circumstances, matter was heard by Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education
Services Board and proposal of concerned Committee of Management was approved by impugned
order dated 15.05.2013 that inquiry report has come to correct conclusion. Aforesaid order dated
15.05.2013 is impugned in present writ petition.
2 All. Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1483

7. During disciplinary proceedings, one of victims has also lodged an FIR against petitioner
which was ultimately culminated into criminal trial, however, trial was concluded vide judgment
dated 24.01.2019 whereby petitioner was granted acquittal.

8. In said judgment, victim girl who appeared as PW-1 has in fact supported the prosecution
case in entirety. The PW-4 another victim has also stated that petitioner has misbehaved sexually
with her, however, trial Court has disbelieved statement of victims despite they remained consistent
only on a ground that there was prior enmity between petitioner and Manager and victims were
created and finally held that prosecution has failed to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Sri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Petitioner-in-person has made an attempt to take advantage of
order of acquittal that if statement of victims is disbelieved in criminal trial, petitioner cannot be
punished in disciplinary proceedings on basis of same nature of statement given by victim girls,
though he has also submitted that order impugned is not a reasoned order.

10. Per contra, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent-5 has supported the
impugned order.

11. As referred above, petitioner was granted ample opportunity to appear and place his case
before Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer has submitted a very detailed inquiry report wherein
statement of victim girls were recorded and despite granting various opportunities, he has not
availed the same and as such Court is of considered opinion that in present case, inquiry was
conducted after complying principles of natural justice. During inquiry, statement of victim girls
were recorded who have supported their respective complaint. Victims have given answers to
questions asked during inquiry. Petitioner was asked to appear during inquiry but he refused on one
or other reason.

12. After second show cause notice was issued again, petitioner was granted ample
opportunities to present his case, however, he has opted not to appear, therefore, Committee of
Management has adopted a very detailed proposal wherein all materials were mentioned
specifically and Members of Committee of Management being adopted it after detailed
consideration.

13. On basis of directions passed by this Court, matter was referred to Commission and
Secretary of it has passed impugned order that outcome of inquiry was against petitioner and
punishment was correctly awarded considering nature of allegations. There is no ground for this
Court to disbelieve the statement of victim girls recorded during inquiry wherein they have
supported their respective complaints that petitioner was indulged in explicit sexual conversation
and unwarranted touch with victims.

14. Therefore, this Court does not find that within very limited scope of interference, outcome
of disciplinary proceedings can be interfered and for that Court takes note of few paragraphs of
Bhupinderpal Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 113 which are
quoted below :-
1484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"33."Certain generic principles governing interference with orders of punishment that are
passed following inquiry proceedings have evolved over a period of time. Law is well settled that
an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in
judicial review because the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If there is some legal
evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is
not a matter for canvassing before the high court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution. However, should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied
that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice,"or"that the inquiry proceedings
have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry,"or"that
the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the
evidence and merits of the case,"or"that the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is"ex
facie"arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such
conclusion,"or"there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the
exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. After all, public servants to whom Article 311
of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high
court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is
manifestly demonstrated.

34.It would further be of immense profit, at this stage, to consider a specific principle
which is tailored to the particular situation and could clinch the issue. The Constitution Bench of
this Court, speaking through Hon'ble P.B. Gajendragadkar, J., in"Union of India"v."H.C.
Goel8"laid down a specific test which could be applied if a contention were raised that the
conclusion is based on no evidence. Relevant passages from the said decision evincing one of the
two questions arising for decision and the answer thereto, read as follows:

"1. Two short questions of law arise for our decision in the present appeal. The first
question is " ; and the other question is whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition filed
by a Government Officer who has been dismissed from Government service is entitled to hold that
the conclusion reached by the Government in regard to his misconduct if (sic, is) not supported by
any evidence at all. As our judgment will show, we are inclined to answer both the questions in the
affirmative. Thus, the appellant, the Union of India, succeeds on the first point, but fails on the
second. "

20. ...It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he
contends that in the circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the Government is based on no
evidence whatever. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious
and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In
dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt
with so as to attract Article 311(2),the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire
whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not
supported by any evidence at all.It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a
Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order;
nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to
determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial
proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a
2 All. Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1485
public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government
in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence...

23. .. In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court
cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a
particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals
with the question;but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in
support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry
is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the
respondent This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands
and only examine whether on that evidence illegally (sic, legally) the impugned conclusion follows
or not.""

26. " Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from
public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose,mere suspicion
should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries.It may be that the
technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary
proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be
taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to
disciplinary enquires held under the statutory rules."

(emphasis supplied)

35.It also needs to be emphasised that although the traditional concept of natural justice
comprises of the two rules that prohibit anyone from being condemned unheard and anyone from
being a judge of his own cause, jurisprudence on natural justice principles have seen a distinct shift
ever since the decision in"Maneka Gandhi"v."India9"constitutionalised principles of natural justice,
as held in"Madhayamam Broadcasting Ltd."v."Union of India10. Drawing inspiration from such
authorities, it would be apt to observe that in relation to disciplinary proceedings, subject to just
exceptions, natural justice would envisage observance of procedural fairness before holding a
public servant guilty of misconduct and imposing a punishment on him for such misconduct. While
it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles
have been declared by this Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any
disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and
21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable. To test whether interference is warranted, this
Court has laid down that the scrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary
proceedings have been conducted fairly; if not, an inference can be drawn that this has caused
prejudice to the charged employee. Be that as it may, there can be no gainsaying that the
consequences of violation of a fair procedure, which principles of natural justice embody, in a
given situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind that judicial review is
not intended to be an appeal in disguise."

15. Now, Court proceeds to consider whether on basis of subsequent acquittal in criminal trial,
impugned order can be set aside.
1486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. The first thing is whether acquittal is an honourable acquittal or not. As mentioned in
earlier paragraphs, despite victims have made categorical statement before trial Court and
supported the prosecution case, still only on a ground that there was an enmity between petitioner
and Manager of concerned Committee of Management, the cogent statement of victim was
disbelieved and order of acquittal was granted, therefore, it is not a case of honourable acquittal and
for reference, relevant part of judgments passed by Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General
of Police and another Vs. S.Samuthiram, 2013 (1) SCC 598 as well as State of Rajasthan and
Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena, 2021 SCC Online SC 252 are quoted below :-

DIGP vs. S. Samuthiram

"24. The meaning of the expression ''honourable acquittal' came up for consideration
before this Court in RBI Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541. In that case, this Court has
considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on
the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle
an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The
expressions ''honourable acquittal', ''acquitted of blame', ''fully exonerated' are unknown to the
Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is
difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression ''honourably acquitted'. When the
accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had
miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the
accused was honourably acquitted." (Emphasis added)"

State of Rajasthan vs. Love Kush Meena

"15. It is pointed out that various nuances arising in this judgment has been considering
even in the subsequent judgments. In Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v.
Pradeep Kumar & Anr., (2018) 1 SCC 797, a two Judge Bench of this Court dealt with the
expression "honourable acquittal". It was opined that acquittal in a criminal case was not
conclusive for suitability of the candidate concerned and it could not always be inferred from an
acquittal or discharge that the person was falsely involved or has no criminal antecedents. Thus,
unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. No doubt, it
was mentioned by relying on the earlier judgment of this Court in Inspector General of Police v. S.
Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598, that while it was difficult to define precisely what is meant by the
expression "honourable acquittal", an accused who is acquitted after full consideration of the
prosecution evidence and prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the
accused...."

(emphasis added)"

17. In this background, Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Maharana Pratap Singh vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2025 INSC 554, Ram Lal Vs. State
of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Dilip
Uttam Jayabhay, (2022) 2 SCC 696 wherein it has been held that :-
2 All. Ranjeet Singh & Anr. Vs. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors.
1487

"As per the cardinal principle of law an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or
relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different
and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives"

18. In aforesaid circumstances, Court finds that in present case, acquittal in criminal trial
would have no bearing on the outcome of disciplinary proceedings and Court also finds that nature
of allegations against petitioner are very serious and which have been proved on basis of statement
of victims which were also remained consistent even during criminal trial. The acquittal was not a
honourable acquittal.

19. Therefore, on both grounds, this writ petition has no force, hence, it is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1487
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ B No. 1119 of 2025

Ranjeet Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether only an assertion of the fact regarding abandonment or withdrawal of the proceedings by the
plaintiff/appellants, can result in the transposition of the applicants as appellants, or whether these facts must
be proved to the satisfaction of the court?

Headnotes
A. Civil Procedural Law - Code of Civil Procedure: Order 1 Rule 10, Order XXIII Rule 1; U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Section 9-A(2), 11(1) - The basic requirement for exercise
of powers u/Rule 1-A, would be to examine if the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or to abandon
his claim u/Rule 1 of Order XXIII, and the defendant seeking transposition is having an interest
in the subject-matter of the suit and thereby, a substantial question to be adjudicated against
the other defendant. In such a situation, the pro forma defendant is to be allowed to continue with the
same suit as plaintiff, thereby averting the likelihood of his right being defeated and also obviating the
unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. (Para 20)

In the present case, it is noticed that the only ground stated in the application dated 24/06/2025 filed by the
petitioners before the appellate court was that the appellants for some unknown reasons have colluded with
the defendant no.2 due to which they are not diligently prosecuting the said appeal, and therefore it is
necessary for the applicants to be transposed as the appellants for protection of the rights. (Para 21)

B. Transposition can have serious consequences and therefore, the courts have to be
circumspect before allowing any such application. Once the application for transposition is