# Shri Ram Narayan Pandey Petition v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1278
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-11-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66949 of 2010
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-ram-narayan-pandey-petition-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41769
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Revision of
Subsistence
allowance-petitioner-after
conviction
under
7/3
prevention
of
corruption
Act-during
pendency
of
appeal-granted
bail-unless
conviction
set-a-side not entitled for relief claimed.

Held: Para 8

In our opinion, a person convicted on
charges of corruption should not be
allowed to continue in service until his
conviction is set aside by appellate court.
The High Court in appeal has not stayed
the conviction of the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
[2007 SCC 574], [(2001) 6 SCC 594], [(2001)
7 SCC 231], [(2007) 1 SCC 673].
3 All] Shri Ram Narayan Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
1279

## Text

1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Management either under a valid election or
even otherwise vis-a-vis its effective control
can be gone into only under the provisions
of Section 16 (A) (7) of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 after
recording findings with regard to effective
control. This power is to be exercised by the
Joint Director of Education and now under
the Government Order dated 19.12.2000
such disputes have to be processed through
the Regional Level Committee. To that
extent, the District Inspector of Schools
appears to have exceeded in his jurisdiction
and the learned counsel for the respondents,
therefore, concede on this count that the
matter ought to have been referred to the
Regional Level Committee in stead of the
District Inspector of Schools himself taking
a decision.

9. I have perused the order of the
District Inspector of Schools, who has
proceeded to assess the validity of the
elections. The finding is that no permission
was taken from the District Inspector of
Schools for holding of the alleged elections
as claimed by the petitioner. It is, therefore,
clear that the District Inspector of Schools
while proceeding to pass an order has
entered into the question of validity of the
election
set
up
by
the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the order impugned dated
18.10.2010 insofar as it relates to the single
operation of accounts under Section 3 (3) of
the U.P. Act No.24 of 1972 Act is
concerned, is unsustainable. It is hereby
quashed leaving it open to the District
Inspector of Schools to refer the matter to
the Regional Level Committee for decision
afresh in the light of the observations made
herein above.

10. In case such a request is made by
the District Inspector of Schools, the
Regional Level Committee shall proceed to
resolve the dispute as expeditiously as
possible but not later than 3 months from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order before it.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66949 of 2010

Shri Ram Narayan Pandey
 ...Petition
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.K. Upadhyay
Sri Piyush Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Revision of
Subsistence
allowance-petitioner-after
conviction
under
7/3
prevention
of
corruption
Act-during
pendency
of
appeal-granted
bail-unless
conviction
set-a-side not entitled for relief claimed.

Held: Para 8

In our opinion, a person convicted on
charges of corruption should not be
allowed to continue in service until his
conviction is set aside by appellate court.
The High Court in appeal has not stayed
the conviction of the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
[2007 SCC 574], [(2001) 6 SCC 594], [(2001)
7 SCC 231], [(2007) 1 SCC 673].
3 All] Shri Ram Narayan Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
1279
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. We have head Sri M.K. Upadhyay,
for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel
appears for the respondents.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for increase in the subsistence
allowance in accordance with law, and to
decide
his
representation,
which
is
recommended by the Additional Director,
Treasuries and Pension, Allahabad.

3. The petitioner was serving as
Accounts Officer in the Office of the District
Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur. On
6.5.1995, he was caught red handed in a trap
case by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Department,
and
was
placed
under
suspension. A criminal case was registered
against him under Section7/13(2) of the
Prevent of Corruption Act. He is continuing
under suspension for last 15 years.

4. The petitioner was convicted and
sentenced by judgment and order dated
28.11.2006 in Special Case No. 110 of 1997.
The judgment dated 28.11.2006, convicting
him of the offence under Section 7/13 (2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, and
sentencing him for 2 years rigorous
imprisonment, and Rs.5,000/- fine have been
challenged by him in Criminal Appeal
No.7725 of 2006. By an order dated
14.12.2006, the learned judge hearing
Criminal Appeal has passed an order
directing the appellant be released on bail, on
his furnishing personal bond with two
sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court below, and the
execution of the sentence has been stayed,
during pendency of the appeal.

5. The petitioner is entitled for revision
of the rates of subsistence allowance, which
he was getting, recommended by the Sixth
Pay Commission. In the present case,
however, the petitioner was convicted by the
competent court vide judgment dated
28.11.2006 (before the revision of pay and
allowances by the Sixth Pay Commission). A
Government servant convicted on a criminal
charge, involving moral turpitude, such as
corruption, is not entitled to continue in
service. The procedure for imposing major
penalties, under Rule 7 of the U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules 1999 is not applicable where the major
penalty is imposed on a person on the ground
of conduct, which has led to his conviction
on a criminal charge. Proviso (i) to clause
(xii) of Rule 7 authorizes the disciplinary
authority, to impose major penalty on
corruption.

6. The order dated 14.12.2006 in
Criminal Appeal No. 7725 of 2006 does not
stay the conviction of the petitioner. The
High Court has only stayed the sentence, and
has directed the petitioner to be released on
bail. The petitioner is not allowed to take the
benefit of the order dated 14.12.2006, to
avoid major penalty.

7. In Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. State of
U.P. and others [2007 SCC 574], following
K.C. Sarin Vs. CBI [(2001) 6 SCC 594];
B.R. Kapur Vs. State of T.N. [(2001) 7
SCC 231]; and Ravikant S Patil Vs.
Sarvabhouma S. Bagali [(2007) 1 SCC
673], the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"... when conviction is on a corruption
charge, it would be a sublime public policy
that the convicted person is kept under
disability of the conviction instead of
keeping the sentence of the imprisonment in
abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. In
such cases, it is obvious that it would be
highly improper to suspend the order of
1280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
conviction of a public servant, which would
enable him to occupy the same office which
he misused."

8. In our opinion, a person convicted
on charges of corruption should not be
allowed to continue in service until his
conviction is set aside by appellate court. The
High Court in appeal has not stayed the
conviction of the petitioner.

9. After close of arguments, the
petitioner wanted to withdraw the writ
petition. We decline to grant the prayer.

10. The writ petition is dismissed.

11. Let a copy of this order be given to
the standing counsel for necessary directions.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.11.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE FERDINO I. REBELLO, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.

Special Appeal No.549 of 2007

State of U.P. and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Munni Devi

 ...Respondent

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Compassionate appointment-dependent
of work charge employer-not entitled to
claim benefit under Dying in harness
Rules-Hon'ble Single Judge Quashed the
G.O. Dated 29.01.2003 by which the
benefit of compassionate appointment
to
the
dependent
of
work
charge
employees
withdrawn-without
disclosing
any
reason-held-not
sustainable
in
view
of
Full
Bench
decision judgement by Single Judge seta-side

Held: Para 7

Though, it earlier had made a provision
extending certain benefits in favour of
dependants of persons working on daily
wage/muster roll basis, it also had right
to withdraw the same. It cannot be said
that merely because the State has
withdrawn the benefit which was earlier
extended, the same has resulted in any
arbitrariness or in violation of any
constitutional provision. The judgment of
the learned Single Judge, therefore,
suffers from an error of law inasmuch as
no
reason
has
been
assigned
for
quashing the Government Order dated
29.01.2003 withdrawing certain benefit
extended under Dying in Harness Rules.
Case law discussed:
[(2002) 1 UPLBEC 337], Civil Misc.Petition No.
15505 of 2005,(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 304

(Delivered by Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.)

1. The State and its functionaries
have preferred this appeal against the
judgment and order dated 17.09.2004, by
which the learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred
to as the ''respondent'), and directed them
to consider her case for appointment on
compassionate ground.

2. The husband of the respondent
had joined as daily wager in Public Works
Department in the year 1983. From the
year 1998, he worked on work charged
basis till his death on 2nd May, 2003.
After his death, the respondent applied for
appointment on compassionate ground on
24th
July,
2003
under
the
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants
of
Government Servant (Dying in Harness)
Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the
''Dying in Harness Rules'). Her claim was
rejected on the ground that the employees
working on work charged basis are not