# Shiv Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 838
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-07-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6827 of 2010
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41972
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Promotion-Disciplinary
ProceedingsPetitioner working as Junior Engineereligible
for
promotion-Departmental
Promotional
Committee-considering
disciplinary
proceedings
kept
decision
under seal cover-in the year 2008-200906.04.09 inquiry officer exhonerated from
all charges-duly accepted by Govt. on
16.04.2009-commission refuse to open the
seal on ground fresh inquiry set up heldunless charge sheet submitted seal cover
procedure
can
not
be
restoredconsequential directions given.

Held: Para 9

In the aforesaid facts, in our view, the writ
petition deserves to be allowed and it is
accordingly allowed. The respondent no.3
is directed to open the sealed cover with
regard to the promotion of the petitioner
and implement the recommendation of the
Departmental
Promotional
Committee
within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall also be entitled all
consequential benefits, including payment
of arrears of salary, if any, to which he may
2 All] Shiv Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
839
be found entitled if the recommendation
made by the D.P.C. is in favour of his
promotion.
Case law discussed:
1991 (4) SCC 109

## Text

838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

10. In view of the above, keeping in
view the fact that before sending the matter
to the State Government, the respondent
University has not held any inquiry after
due compliance of principle of natural
justice and providing opportunity to the
petitioners to defend their cause, the
impugned order passed by the State
Government seems to be not sustainable
and is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The writ petitions
deserve to be allowed.

11. The writ petitions are accordingly
allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the impugned order dated
14.7.2011 contained in Annexure No.1 to
the writ petitions with all consequential
benefits. Keeping in view the seriousness
of the allegations on record, the respondent
University is directed to hold inquiry in
accordance with law keeping in view the
observations
made
hereinabove
expeditiously say within two weeks from
today. Sri J. N. Mathur is agree that the
inquiry shall be concluded within two
weeks.

12. During the course of hearing I
have been informed that in the respondent
University, since one and half year, there is
no regular Registrar. It has been submitted
by the respondents counsel that the
Registrar has already been appointed. In
case the Registrar has not been appointed,
the
respondents
shall
ensure
the
appointment of Regular Registrar in
accordance with Rules within a month.

The
writ
petition
is
allowed
accordingly.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN,J.
THE HON,BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6827 of 2010

Shiv Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jamal Ali
Sri Adil Jamal
Sri Satish Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Promotion-Disciplinary
ProceedingsPetitioner working as Junior Engineereligible
for
promotion-Departmental
Promotional
Committee-considering
disciplinary
proceedings
kept
decision
under seal cover-in the year 2008-200906.04.09 inquiry officer exhonerated from
all charges-duly accepted by Govt. on
16.04.2009-commission refuse to open the
seal on ground fresh inquiry set up heldunless charge sheet submitted seal cover
procedure
can
not
be
restoredconsequential directions given.

Held: Para 9

In the aforesaid facts, in our view, the writ
petition deserves to be allowed and it is
accordingly allowed. The respondent no.3
is directed to open the sealed cover with
regard to the promotion of the petitioner
and implement the recommendation of the
Departmental
Promotional
Committee
within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall also be entitled all
consequential benefits, including payment
of arrears of salary, if any, to which he may
2 All] Shiv Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
839
be found entitled if the recommendation
made by the D.P.C. is in favour of his
promotion.
Case law discussed:
1991 (4) SCC 109

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J. )

1. The petitioner is Junior Engineer
(Civil) in the Irrigation Department of the
State Government, who was eligible for
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.
His
case
was
considered
for
such
promotion. However, since there was a
departmental inquiry pending against the
petitioner, the Departmental Promotional
Committee (hereinafter referred to D.P.C.)
vide its decision dated 11.02.2009 declared
the results of other candidates, but the
decision in the case of the petitioner was
kept in a sealed cover.

2. The case of the petitioner is that
though in the inquiry the petitioner has been
exonerated of all the charges vide inquiry
report dated 06.04.2009, regarding which
office memorandum was issued and
communicated
to
the
petitioner
on
16.04.2009, but still respondents did not
open the decision kept in sealed cover with
regard to the promotion of the petitioner
despite repeated representations made by
the petitioner. The petitioner has thus filed
this writ petition with the prayer to open the
sealed cover at an early date, and if the
department has recommended the case of
the petitioner for promotion, then petitioner
be given notional promotion from the date
his next juniors have been given promotion.
Prayer has also been made for a direction to
the respondents to pay arrears of salary
along with interest and cost.

3. We have heard Sri Satish Chandra
Mishra learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Sri Pankaj Saxena,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State respondent and Sri P.S.Baghel,
learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri
Gautam Baghel appearing for the U.P.
Public Service Commission, Allahabad and
have perused the record. Pleadings have
been exchanged and with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, this petition
is disposed of finally at this stage.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner
was exonerated of the charges vide inquiry
report dated 06.04.2009, which report has
been accepted by the State Government and
communicated
to
the
petitioner
on
16.04.2009. The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner has force that
immediately after the exoneration in the
inquiry proceeding, the sealed cover ought
to have been opened and promotion granted
to the petitioner, if it has been so
recommended by the D.P.C.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the
Commission,
it
is
stated
that
the
Commission had sent letter on 29.07.2009
stating that they have considered the case of
the petitioner and deferred the matter on the
ground that there is a fresh inquiry initiated
against the petitioner and the decision shall
be taken after finalization of such inquiry.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Irrigation Department, it has been stated
that after the completion of the inquiry and
final order passed on 16.04.2009, in which
the petitioner was exonerated of the
charges, the disciplinary proceeding had
come to an end and thereafter, Government
had written letter to the Public Service
Commission on 22.07.2009 to open the
sealed envelop of the selection year 20082009 pertaining to petitioner's promotion on
the post of Assistant Engineer. In the said
counter affidavit, there is no mention of any
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
fresh inquiry having been initiated against
the petitioner.

6. In the counter affidavit of the State
Government, it has been stated in paragraph
4 that a fresh charge sheet has been issued
to the petitioner with regard to some other
matter on 24.5.2010. It is however, not
disputed that as on the date of passing of the
order by the Commission on 29.07.2009,
there was no inquiry pending against the
petitioner.

7. It is not understood as to on what
basis the Commission did not open the
sealed cover by merely stating that some
fresh inquiry is going on, whereas on the
record as well as counter affidavits filed, no
evidence of any such inquiry is there of
which the Commission has mentioned in its
communication dated 29.07.2009.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Union of India vs K.V. Jankiraman,
1991 (4) SCC 109 has held that the sealed
cover procedure is to be resorted to only
after the charge-memo/ charge-sheet is
issued. In the present case, once the
petitioner had been exonerated of all the
charges in the departmental inquiry, which
had
been
accepted
by
the
State
Government, after the acceptance of the
report,
it
was
incumbent
upon
the
Commission to open the sealed cover with
regard to the promotion of the petitioner,
which has wrongly not been done under the
garb of a fresh inquiry having been started,
which is totally incorrect. The charge
memo/charge sheet in the subsequent
inquiry was issued after about a year. As
such,
there
was
no
basis
for
the
Commission to deny the petitioner the
benefit of opening the decision regarding
his promotion kept in sealed cover on the
ground of pending inquiry.

9. In the aforesaid facts, in our view,
the writ petition deserves to be allowed and
it is accordingly allowed. The respondent
no.3 is directed to open the sealed cover
with regard to the promotion of the
petitioner
and
implement
the
recommendation
of
the
Departmental
Promotional Committee within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. The petitioner
shall also be entitled all consequential
benefits, including payment of arrears of
salary, if any, to which he may be found
entitled if the recommendation made by the
D.P.C. is in favour of his promotion.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE NHON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16718 of 2010

Dr. Nupur Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State
of
U.P.
Thru.
P.S.
Medical
Education & others.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri Praveen Kumar
Sri Prem Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri ,Mahendra Pratap
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 14-whether
provision of clause 8(h) of notification
dated
09.10.2010
as
amended
by
notification Dt. 08.07.1996 restricting
admission of Diploma Course in Degree
Course
in
different
tread
without
completing said Diploma or refunding