# Smt. Archana Sahu v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 423
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-04
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8120 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-archana-sahu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53563
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, is
appealable,
or
whether
the
aggrieved
employee has the remedy of representation
under Rule 5(2) of the said Rules.

HEADNOTE
A. Service Law - U.P. Basic Education
Staff Rules, 1973 - Rule 3 and Rule 5 -
Remedy
against
minor
and
major
penalties
-

"Appeal"
and
"Representation" - Held, appeal lies only
against
major
penalties
enumerated
under Rule 5(1), whereas for minor
penalties such as censure or withholding
of increment, remedy is by way of
representation under Rule 5(2).
Petitioner,
a
primary
school
teacher
challenged
the
order
dated
09.04.2025
passed by the District Basic Education Officer,
withholding one increment with cumulative
effect and transferring her. Held: Penalty of
withholding of one increment with cumulative
effect falls under minor penalties and is not
appealable under Rule 5(1). Remedy available
is to make a representation before the officer
specified by the Director of Education (Basic)
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Rule 5(2). Petition disposed of granting
liberty to the petitioner to file representation
and the authority directed to decide the same
within four weeks thereafter. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
None

LIST OF ACTS

Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, S. 19
Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973,
Rules 3 and 5

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Service Law - Minor Penalty - Withholding of
Increment - Representation - Appeal - Rule
5(1) - Rule 5(2) - Basic Education Officer -
Primary Teacher - Disciplinary Action - Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973
CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 09.04.2025 passed by District Basic
Education Officer, Bhadohi
APPEARANCES
For the Petitioner : Sri Avijit Saxena, Advocate
For the Respondents : C.S.C., Sri Shrinath

## Text

7 All. Smt. Archana Sahu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423
Hindu University (2022) 8 SCC 713, it
has been held that when a procedure is laid
down to do a thing then it should be done
in that manner alone.

12. In view of the above, the order
impugned dated 27th March, 2025 is
hereby
quashed,
however,
Petitioner's
status will be the same as was at the time of
inquiry till the fresh inquiry report is
submitted and consequential action is taken
in the light of the judgment of Supreme
Court in the case of Managing Director,
ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B.
Karunakar and others (1993) 4 SCC 727.

13. Accordingly, the respondent is
directed to appoint new inquiry officer
within a period of four weeks from the date
of production of certified copy of this
order. Soon after the appointment of
inquiry officer as directed herein above, the
petitioner shall be submiting reply to the
chargesheet within a further period of four
weeks. The inquiry officer thereafter shall
proceed to hold oral inquiry and petitioner
shall be participating in the same. The oral
inquiry
would
include
the
oral
examination of the petitioner as well as
the departmental witness, if any. After
the oral examination is completed, the
inquiry report shall be submitted within a
maximum period of two months from the
date of reply submitted by the petitioner
and thereafter the disciplinary authority
shall proceed to pass final order in the
matter strictly in accordance with law and
as per the procedure prescribed under the
Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 within
a further period of two months.

14. Thus, the writ petition succeeds
and is allowed as above.

15. The original records are returned.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 423
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ A No. 8120 of 2025

Smt. Archana Sahu ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avijit Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the penalty of withholding of one
increment with cumulative effect under the
U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, is
appealable,
or
whether
the
aggrieved
employee has the remedy of representation
under Rule 5(2) of the said Rules.

HEADNOTE
A. Service Law - U.P. Basic Education
Staff Rules, 1973 - Rule 3 and Rule 5 -
Remedy
against
minor
and
major
penalties
-

"Appeal"
and
"Representation" - Held, appeal lies only
against
major
penalties
enumerated
under Rule 5(1), whereas for minor
penalties such as censure or withholding
of increment, remedy is by way of
representation under Rule 5(2).
Petitioner,
a
primary
school
teacher
challenged
the
order
dated
09.04.2025
passed by the District Basic Education Officer,
withholding one increment with cumulative
effect and transferring her. Held: Penalty of
withholding of one increment with cumulative
effect falls under minor penalties and is not
appealable under Rule 5(1). Remedy available
is to make a representation before the officer
specified by the Director of Education (Basic)
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Rule 5(2). Petition disposed of granting
liberty to the petitioner to file representation
and the authority directed to decide the same
within four weeks thereafter. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
None

LIST OF ACTS

Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, S. 19
Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973,
Rules 3 and 5

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Service Law - Minor Penalty - Withholding of
Increment - Representation - Appeal - Rule
5(1) - Rule 5(2) - Basic Education Officer -
Primary Teacher - Disciplinary Action - Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973
CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 09.04.2025 passed by District Basic
Education Officer, Bhadohi
APPEARANCES
For the Petitioner : Sri Avijit Saxena, Advocate
For the Respondents : C.S.C., Sri Shrinath
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Avijit Saxena, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri L.M. Singh, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri
Shrinath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent nos.2 and 3.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to
assail the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by
respondent no.3, District Basic Eduction Officer,
Bhadohi, in terms of which one increment of the
petitioner has been withheld with cumulative effect,
and the petitioner has also been transferred from the
place of her posting in Primary School, Bhawapur,
Block Deegh, District Bhadohi.

3. The petitioner claims to have made a
representation against the aforesaid order before the
respondent no.3.

4. Counsel for the petitioner prays for a
direction to the concerned respondent to decide the
said representation.

5. It is pointed out that the services of the
petitioner are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education Staff Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Rules, 1973'). The provisions relating to
punishment and appeal are provided under Rules 3
and 5 of the aforesaid Rules, 1973. For ease of
reference, Rules 3 and 5 are being extracted below:-

"3. Punishment.-The appointing authority
may, for good and sufficient reasons, impose the following
penalties upon the officers, teachers and other employees of
the Board :

(i) Censure;

(ii) withholding of the increments including
stoppage at an efficiency bar;

(iii) Reduction to a lower post of time scale, or
to a lower stage in a time scale;

(iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of
any pecuniary loss caused to the Board by negligence or
breach of orders;

(v) Removal from the service of the Board
which does not disqualify him from future employment;

(vi) Dismissal from the service of the Board
which ordinarily disqualifies him from future employment.

5. Appeal.-(1) An appeal shall lie from an
order passed by the appointing authority in respect of the
posts mentioned in Column 1 of the Schedule
appended to these rules, imposing upon any officer,
teacher or other employee of the Board any of the
penalties mentioned below, to the appellate authority
mentioned in column 3 of the said schedule:-

(a) Reduction to a lower post or time
scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale;
7 All. Smt. Archana Sahu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425

(b) Removal from service of the Board
which does not disqualify for future employment;

(c) Dismissal from the service of the
Board, which ordinarily disqualifies from future
employment.

(2) In case of other penalties against
which no appeal is provided in this rule, the punished
officer, teacher or other employee of the Board may
make a representation against the imposition of any
of these penalties to such officer as the Director of
Education (Basic) may by general orders from time
to time specify in this behalf.

(3) The procedure laid down in Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
as applicable to servants of the Uttar Pradesh
Government shall, as far as possible, be followed in
disciplinary proceedings, appeals and representations
under these rules."

6. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
Staff Rules, 1973, have been made by the State
Government in exercise of powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, and apply
to the officers, teachers and other employees of
the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education.

7. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1973 provides the
remedy of appeal in regard to imposition of the
penalties specified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5.
Further, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, in case of
other penalties for which no appeal is provided
in the rule, the punished officer, teacher or other
employee of the Board has been given the
option to make a representation against
imposition of the penalty to such officer as the
Director of Education (Basic) may specify.

8. An appeal under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5
would lie against imposition of the following
penalties; (i) reduction to a lower post or time
scale or to a lower stage in a time scale; (ii)
removal from service of the Board which does
not disqualify for future employment; (iii)
dismissal from the service of the Board, which
ordinarily disqualifies from future employment.
The appellate authority before whom the appeal
is to be preferred has been specified in the
schedule appended to the rules.

9. The remedy of filing a representation is
available in case of other penalties against
which no appeal is provided. The other
penalties against which a representation may be
made
are
as
follows:
(i)
censure;
(ii)
withholding
of
the
increments
including
stoppage at an efficiency bar; (iii) recovery
from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary
loss caused to the Board by negligence or
breach of orders. The representation is to be
made to such officer as the Director of
Education (Basic) may by general orders from
time to time specify in this behalf.

10. The right to invoke the remedy of an
appeal,
or
alternatively
to
prefer
a
representation under Rule 5 of the Rules 1973
is, therefore, dependant on the nature of penalty
that has been imposed. The distinction between
an appeal and a representation lies primarily on
the nature of penalty imposed and the authority
to whom the grievance is to be addressed.
While an appeal would serve as a more formal
legal challenge to an order imposing any of the
major penalties specified under sub-rule (1), the
remedy of a representation would be available
in case of other penalties against which appeal
is not provided.

11. In the instant case the order impugned
has imposed the penalty of withholding of one
increment with cumulative effect.

12. The aforesaid penalty is not specified
under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 and therefore no
appeal would lie against the imposition of the
said penalty. However, in terms of sub-rule (2),
against the aforesaid order of penalty, the
petitioner would have a right to make a
representation before the officer specified in
regard to the same.

13. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to
invoke sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 to prefer a
representation before the authority specified for
the purpose.

14. Counsel appearing for the respondent
nos.2 and 3 submits that in case the petitioner
prefers a representation in terms of sub-rule (2)
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Rule 5, the same would be considered
appropriately and an order would be passed.

15. The petitioner, would therefore be at
liberty to invoke the remedy of making a
representation in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5
of the Rules, 1973, within a period of two
weeks from today, and in the event such
representation is moved, the specified authority
would accord consideration to the same and
pass a reasoned order within a period of four
weeks thereafter.

16. With the above observations, the
petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 426
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 9604 of 2025

Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shyam Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
Whether a delinquent employee may directly
approach the state government against the
order of punishment without exhausting first the
remedy of statutory appeal?

Headnotes
A. U.P. Government Servants (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1991: Rules 4, 7, 13,
20, 23 - The power vested with the State
Government u/s 13 of the Rules, 1991 are
power of revision and a delinquent employee
may directly approach the state government
against the order of punishment without
exhausting first the remedy of statutory appeal.
(Para 5)
Power of revision cannot be equated with
the power of statutory appellate authority
even in service jurisprudence. Both the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate
authority are subordinate authorities to the
State Government being functionaries of police
department of the State Government. Such
authorities being subordinate to the state
Government, are subject to extraordinary power
vested
with
the
State
Government.
An
employee, therefore, can always apply to the
State Government directly against the final
order of disciplinary authority and/ or appellate
authority without exhausting the alternative
remedy. However, the powers of the state
government u/Rule 23 are only discretionary,
may be exercised suo motu or on an application
being filed and shall not be confused with vide
power vested with the appellate authority under
punishment and appeal rules. Thus, ordinarily
power of appeal be first exhausted and state
government
should
also
encourage
while
dealing with representations directly made
against punishment orders that aggrieved
employee should approach it only exceptionally.
(Para 7)

B. Supreme Court though has discussed
1999 Rules but Rule 13 of 1999 Rules and
rule 23 of 1991 rule are pari materia and
hence principles regulating the field would
dependent upon the same analogy. (Para
9)

Since power is there with the State Government
and representation has been made by the
petitioner, this petition is disposed of with the
direction to the respondent No. 1 to decide the
representation
of
the
petitioner
dated
16.05.2025
in
accordance
with
law,
as
expeditiously as possible within a period of two
months from the production of certified copy of
this order. (Para 10)

Writ petition disposed of with directions. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal
Secretary Home Department Lko and 2 others
Writ A No. 2359 of 2025 (Para 4)

2. Prachand Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and
others,
(2004)
4
SCC
113
(Para
8)