# Shatrughan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 160
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-24
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8417 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shatrughan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49940
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Suspension/Punishment
- U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999: Rule 4 - On a plain
reading of Rule 4(i), it is clear that the life
of a suspension order survives only till the
conclusion
of
the
inquiry
and
not
thereafter. In the present case, the suspension
order had come to an end on 19.10.2022, the
date on which the inquiry was concluded against
the petitioner. Merely because the order
dated 19.10.2022 was set aside and
liberty was granted to the respondent to
proceed
afresh,
there
can
be
no
presumption that the suspension order
would stand revived except when the
same is traceable to the conditions u/Rule
4(vi), where the order of dismissal or
removal from services has been imposed
upon the government servants. (Para 9)

B. Continuation of passing of suspension
order can be justified only when the
charges leveled can lead to award of a
major penalty whereas in the present case
the
respondents
themselves
on
the
conclusion of the inquiry imposed a 'minor
penalty'.
Admittedly,
the
order
dated
19.10.2022 has not imposed the punishment of
dismissal or removal from the service. (Para 10)

The suspension order dated 06.08.2022 is
declared to have come to an end on 19.10.2022
when an order was passed against the
petitioner as conclusion of inquiry. Order dated
19.11.2022 was set aside by the Court on
21.11.2022
and
liberty
was
granted
to
respondents to proceed afresh. Therefore, the
respondents shall be at liberty to pass such
order as may be in accordance with law. The
respondent no.2 is directed to pass fresh orders
w.r.t. the claim of the petitioner for payment of
salary and all consequential service benefits
within a period of six weeks. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges suspension
order dated 06.08.2022, whereby the
petitioner was placed under suspension
pending an inquiry.

## Text

160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
The order is liable to be and is hereby set
aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits, including 50% back
wages subject to his giving an undertaking
that he was not employed in any other
department and not getting salary equal to
the salary he was drawing prior to
termination of his services or more than it.

14. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 160
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ A No. 8417 of 2022

Shatrughan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Maya Ram Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Neeraj Chaurasiya

A. Service Law - Suspension/Punishment
- U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999: Rule 4 - On a plain
reading of Rule 4(i), it is clear that the life
of a suspension order survives only till the
conclusion
of
the
inquiry
and
not
thereafter. In the present case, the suspension
order had come to an end on 19.10.2022, the
date on which the inquiry was concluded against
the petitioner. Merely because the order
dated 19.10.2022 was set aside and
liberty was granted to the respondent to
proceed
afresh,
there
can
be
no
presumption that the suspension order
would stand revived except when the
same is traceable to the conditions u/Rule
4(vi), where the order of dismissal or
removal from services has been imposed
upon the government servants. (Para 9)

B. Continuation of passing of suspension
order can be justified only when the
charges leveled can lead to award of a
major penalty whereas in the present case
the
respondents
themselves
on
the
conclusion of the inquiry imposed a 'minor
penalty'.
Admittedly,
the
order
dated
19.10.2022 has not imposed the punishment of
dismissal or removal from the service. (Para 10)

The suspension order dated 06.08.2022 is
declared to have come to an end on 19.10.2022
when an order was passed against the
petitioner as conclusion of inquiry. Order dated
19.11.2022 was set aside by the Court on
21.11.2022
and
liberty
was
granted
to
respondents to proceed afresh. Therefore, the
respondents shall be at liberty to pass such
order as may be in accordance with law. The
respondent no.2 is directed to pass fresh orders
w.r.t. the claim of the petitioner for payment of
salary and all consequential service benefits
within a period of six weeks. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges suspension
order dated 06.08.2022, whereby the
petitioner was placed under suspension
pending an inquiry.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. The present petition has been filed
challenging the suspension order dated
06.08.2022, whereby the petitioner was
placed under suspension pending an
inquiry.

2. The contention of the counsel for
the petitioner is that vide order dated
06.08.2022, the petitioner was placed under
suspension in contemplation of an inquiry
in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 4
of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline
3 All. Shatrughan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
161
and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (Hereinafter
referred to as the "Rules 1999"). It is
argued that in pursuance of the suspension
order, an order came to be passed against
the petitioner whereby the petitioner was
awarded the punishment of stoppage of two
increments and censure.

3. It is argued that the punishment
order passed against the petitioner on
19.10.2022
was
challenged
by
the
petitioner by filing Writ A No.7318 of
2022. The same writ petition was allowed.
The order dated 19.10.2022 was quashed
and liberty was granted to the respondents
to proceed afresh in accordance with law
and to conclude the inquiry within a period
of three months.

4. It is argued that in the light of the
directions
given
by
this
Court
on
21.11.2022, fresh inquiry has been initiated,
however, the same has not culminated and
no order has been passed thereupon in
accordance with law.

5. In light of the said facts, the
submission of counsel for the petitioner is
that the suspension order passed against the
petitioner on 06.08.2022, it is still being
acted upon and the petitioner is not being
permitted to work. He argues that in terms
of Rule 4, the suspension order is to remain
live till the conclusion of the inquiry and,
thus, on the conclusion of the inquiry
which led to passing of the order dated
19.10.2022,
the
suspension
order
immediately came to an end. Thus, it was
incumbent upon the respondents to have
permitted to continue the petitioner to
work.

6. He further argues that the
continuance of suspension order is further
unjustified in view of the first proviso to
Section 4(1), which itself prescribes that
the suspension should not be resorted to
unless the allegations are so serious that in
the event of they being established may
ordinarily warrant awarding major penalty.
He argues that even as per the own showing
of the respondents, the allegations leveled
against the petitioner ultimately led to
passing of an order imposing 'minor
penalty' as prescribed in Rule 3 and, thus,
the continuation of suspension is also in
violation of the proviso to Section 4(1).

7. Shri Ran Vijay Singh, Additional
Chief Standing Counsel, appeared on
behalf of the State and Shri Neeraj
Chaurasiya,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.2 argue that the order dated
19.10.2022 was set aside by this Court on
21.11.2022 and in the said order, liberty
was granted to proceed afresh. In the light
of the said, he argues that as the order dated
19.10.2022 stood quashed, the suspension
order would get automatically revived. He
further argues that Section 4(vi) also makes
a provision for automatic revival of the
suspension order. He, thus, argues that the
petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the light of the said submission,
this Court is to analyze the scope of Rule 4
of the Rule of 1999 which are quoted
herein below:-

"4.
Suspension-
(1)
A
Government servant against whose conduct
an
inquiry
is
contemplated,
or
is
proceeding
may
be
placed
under
suspension pending the conclusion of the
inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing
Authority:

Provided that suspension should
not be resorted to unless the allegations
against the Government servant are so
serious that in the event of their being
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
established may ordinarily warrant major
penalty:

Provided further that concerned
Head of the Department empowered by the
Governor by an order in this behalf may
place a Government Servant or class of
Government servants belonging to Group
'A' and 'B' posts under suspension under
this rule:

Provided also that in the case
Government
servant
or
class
of
Government servants belonging to Group
'C' and 'D' posts, the appointing authority
may delegate its power under this rule to
the next lower authority.

(2) A Government servant in
respect
of,
or
against
whom
an
investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a
criminal charge, which is connected with
his position as a Government servant or
which is likely to embarrass him in the
discharge of his duties or which involves
moral turpitude, is pending, may at the
discretion of the appointing authority or the
authority to whom the power of suspension
has been delegated under these rules, be
placed
under
suspension
until
the
termination of all proceedings relating to
that charge.

(3) (a) A Government Servant
shall be deemed to have been placed or as
the case may be, continued to be place
under suspension by an order of the
authority competent to suspend, with effect
from the date of his detention, if he is
detained in custody, whether the detention
is on criminal charge or otherwise, for a
period exceeding forty eight hours.

(b) The aforesaid Government
servant shall after the release from the
custody,
inform
in
writing
to
the
competent authority about his detention
and
may
also
make
representation
against the deemed suspension. The
competent
authority
shall
after
considering the representation in the light
of the facts and circumstances of the case
as well as the provision contained in this
rule, pass appropriate order continuing
the deemed suspension from, the date of
release from custody or revoking or
modifying it.

(4) Government servant shall be
deemed to have placed, or as the case
may be, continued to be under suspension
by an order of the authority competent to
suspend under these rules, with effect
from the date of his conviction if in the
event of a conviction for an offence he is
sentenced to a term of imprisonment
exceeding forty eight hours and is not
forthwith
dismissed
or
removed
consequent to such conviction.

Explanation- A period of forty
eight hours referred to in sub-rule (1) be
computed from the commencement of the
imprisonment after the conviction and for
this purpose, intermittent period of
imprisonment, if any, shall be taken to
account.

(5) Where a penalty of dismissal
or removal from service imposed upon a
Government servant is set aside in appeal
or on review under these rules or under
rules rescinded by these rules and the
case is remitted for further inquiry or
action or with any other directions-

(a) if he was under suspension
immediately before the penalty was
awarded to him, the order of his
suspension shall, subject to any such
direction as aforesaid, be deemed to have
continued in force on and from the date of
the original order of dismissal or
removal;

(b)
if
he
was
not
under
suspension, he shall, if so directed by the
appellate
or
reviewing
authority,
be
deemed to have been placed under
suspension by an order of the appointing
3 All. Shatrughan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
163
authority on and from the date of the
original order of dismissal or removal:

Provided that nothing in this subrule shall be construed as affecting the
power of the disciplinary authority in a
case where a penalty of dismissal or
removal in service imposed upon a
Government servant is set aside in appeal
or on review under these rules grounds
other than the merits of the allegations
which, the said penalty was imposed but
the case remitted for further inquiry or
action or with any other directions to pass
an order of suspension pending further
inquiry against him on those allegations so
however, that any such suspension shall not
have retrospective effect.

(6) Where penalty of dismissal or
removal
from
service
imposed
upon
Government servant is set aside or
declared or rendered void in consequence
of or by a decision of a court of law and the
appointing authority, on a consideration of
the circumstances of the case, decides to
hold a further inquiry against him on the
allegation
on which
the penalty
of
dismissal
or
removal
was
originally
imposed, whether the allegations remain in
their original form or are clarified or their
particulars better specified or any part
thereof a minor nature omitted:

(a) if he was under suspension
immediately
before
the
penalty
was
awarded to him, the order of his suspension
shall, subject to any direction of the
appointing authority, be deemed to have
continued in force on and from the date of
the original order of dismissal or removal.

(b) if he was not under such
suspension, he shall, if so directed by the
appointing authority, be deemed to have
been placed under suspension by an order
of the competent authority and from the
date of the original order of dismissal or
removal.

(7) where a Government servant
is suspended or is deemed to have been
suspended (whether in connection with any
disciplinary proceeding or otherwise) and
any other disciplinary proceeding is
commenced
against
him
during
the
continuance
of
that
suspension,
the
authority competent to place him under
suspension may, for reasons to be recorded
by
him
in
writing
direct
that
the
Government servant shall continue to be
under suspension till termination of all or
any such proceedings.

(8) any suspension ordered or
deemed to have been ordered or to have
continued to remain in force under this rule
shall continue in force until it is modified
or revoked by the competent authority.

(9) A Government servant placed
under suspension or deemed to have been
placed under suspension under this rule
shall be entitled to subsistence allowance
in accordance with the provisions of
Fundamental Rule 53 of the Financial
Hand Book, Volume II, Parts II to IV."

9. On a plain reading of Rule 4(i), it is
clear that the life of a suspension order
survives only till the conclusion of the
inquiry and not thereafter. In the present
case, the suspension order had come to an
end on 19.10.2022, the date on which the
inquiry
was
concluded
against
the
petitioner. Merely because the said order
was set aside and liberty was granted to the
respondent to proceed afresh, there can be
no presumption that the suspension order
would stand revived except when the same
is traceable to the conditions under Rule
4(vi), where the order of dismissal or
removal from services has been imposed
upon the government servants.

10. In the present case, admittedly, the
order dated 19.10.2022 has not imposed the
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punishment of dismissal or removal from
the service. As such, the submission of the
counsel for the respondents based upon
interpretation of Rule 4(vi) of the said Rule
cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the
second submission of counsel for the
petitioner
merits
acceptance
that
continuation of passing of suspension order
can be justified only when the charges
leveled can lead to award of a major
penalty whereas in the present case the
respondents themselves on the conclusion
of the inquiry imposed a 'minor penalty', as
such, even if for the sake of arguments, the
contention of counsel for the respondents is
accepted, the suspension order would be hit
by the proviso to Rule 4(i).

11. Thus, on both the grounds, writ
petition deserves to be allowed. The
suspension order dated 06.08.2022 is
declared to have come to an end on
19.10.2022 when an order was passed
against the petitioner as conclusion of
inquiry. The liberty granted by this Court to
respondents to conclude the inquiry in
terms of the judgment dated 21.11.2022
shall continue and the respondents shall be
at liberty to pass such order as may be in
accordance with law. The respondent no.2
is directed to pass fresh orders with regard
to the claim of the petitioner for payment of
salary and all consequential service benefits
within a period of six weeks.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 164
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ A No. 19501 of 2018
U.P.P.C.L. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P. State Public Service Tribunal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vikrant Raghuvanshi, Neerav Chitravanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Deo Raj Singh, P.K. Srivastava,
Renu Mishra

A. Service Law - Punishment - Limitation
- U.P. St. Public (Tribunals) Act, 1976 -
Section 5(1)(b) - The point of limitation
goes to the root of the matter. It involves
a jurisdictional issue. The Limitation Act
has been made applicable to the Tribunal,
as it was applicable to a suit, thus, Section
5 thereof has no application to a reference
filed under Section 4 of the Act. If a claim
petition is barred by limitation, then
irrespective of its merits, the Tribunal has
no other option but to decline to entertain
it. It does not have the power to condone
the delay. (Para 13)

As S. 5(1)(b) provides that the provisions of the
Uttar Pradesh Act 1963 shall mutatis mutandis
apply to reference u/s 4, as the reference were
a suit filed in the civil court, S. 3 of the
Limitation Act would apply to it, which provides
that a suit instituted after the prescribed period
of limitation, shall be dismissed, although
limitation has not been set up as a defence. The
Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in
filing the claim petition. Therefore, the claim
petition filed after the expiry of the limitation
period has to be dismissed and it cannot be
entertained and adjudicated on its merits merely
because it had been admitted. (Para 24, 25)

B. A decision as is well known, is an
authority for which it decides, and not
what can logically be deduced therefrom.
A little difference in facts or additional
facts may make a lot of difference in the
precedential value of a decision. (Para 19)

C. When a belated representation in
regard to a stale or dead issue/dispute is