# Smt. Karmaita v. The Tehsildar and another

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 341
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No.2099 of 2013
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-karmaita-v-the-tehsildar-and-another-42507
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Mutation
proceeding
pending
before
Tehsildar
since 2006-direction to decide within 3
month-issued.

## Text

1 All] Smt. Karmaita Vs. The Tehsildar and another
341
alive, no disciplinary proceedings has
been initiated against him in the incidence
in question in which he has been placed
under suspension, so keeping in view the
said fact, the action on the part of
opposite parties thereby not giving the
salary excluding subsistence allowance to
the petitioner for the period 21.12.2000 to
12.11.2001 and the impugned order dated
28.05.2008 is an exercise which is
arbitrary in nature, liable to be set aside.

8. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

9. As per admitted facts of the case
are that the petitioner was placed under
suspension by an order dated 21.12.2000,
revoked by an order dated 12.11.2001.
Further, in the instant case in which he
was placed under suspension an FIR was
also lodged, on 19.12.2000 (Annexure
No. 2 in which a charge sheet (Annexure
No. 5) has been filed in which name of
the petitioner does not find place.

10. Further, till the death of the
petitioner, no disciplinary proceeding has
been initiated in the matter in which he
has been placed under suspension.

11. In view of the said facts as well
as the provisions as provided under SubRule 2 of Rule 54-B of the U.P.
Fundamental Rules (Financial Hand Book
Volume II (parts 2 to 4), which is quoted
as under:-

"Notwithstanding anything contained
in Rule 53, where a Government servant
under
suspension
dies
before
the
disciplinary or court proceeding instituted
against him are concluded, the period
between the date of suspension and the
date of death shall be treated as duty for
all purposes and his family shall be paid
the full pay and allowances for that
period to which he would have been
entitled had he not been suspended,
subject to adjustment in respect of
subsistence allowance already paid."

12. The impugned order 28.05.2008
(Annexure No. 1) passed by O.P. No. 3
that the petitioner (deceased/Sri Brij Nath
Ram) is not entitled for salary excluding
substantial allowance for the period
21.12.2000 to 12.11.2001 is contrary,
liable to be set aside.

13. For the foregoing reasons, the
impugned
order
dated
28.05.2008
(Annexure No. 1) passed by O.P. No.
3/Superintendent of Police, Sitapur is set
aside to the extent that deceased/Sri Brij
Nath Ram is not entitled for salary
excluding substantial allowance for the
period 21.12.2000 to 12.11.2001, the said
amount shall be paid to Smt. Asha Devi
(petitioner No. 1/1)

14. With the above observations, the
writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
 Misc. Single No.2099 of 2013

Smt. Karmaita

...Petitioner
Versus
The Tehsildar and another...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashwini Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Mutation
proceeding
pending
before
Tehsildar
since 2006-direction to decide within 3
month-issued.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J)

1. Notice on behalf of opposite party
no.1 has been accepted by the office of
learned Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Considering the proposed order,
requirement of issuance of notice to
opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed
with.

3. Heard Sri Ashwani Ojha, learned
counsel for the petitioner, who confines
his prayer only for issuing a direction to
the Tehsildar, District Amethi to decide
the Mutation Case No.198 of 2006; Smt.
Karmaita vs. Shiv Bahadur, under section
34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act in respect
of Gata No.311 having an area of 0.468
hectare, situate in village-Semra, Pargana
and Tehsil-Amethi expeditiously.

4. The prayer made by learned
counsel for the petitioner being innocuous
in nature is, hereby granted.

5. Accordingly, the Tehsildar,
Amethi is directed to decide the aforesaid
Mutation Case expeditiously, say within a
period of three months from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before him.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the
writ petition is disposed of finally.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.03.2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAKI ULLAH KHAN, J.

Writ Petition No. 2199 (S/S) Of 1997

Raj Kishore

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

Civil
Services
Regulations-Regulation
351-A-
Disciplinary
proceeding-when
treated as pending?-petitioner retired
from
post
of
Junior
engineer
on
31.01.1986-show cause notice issued on
06.07.1986-without seeking permission
from
His
Excellency,
the
Governorproceeding deemed pending only after
service of chargesheet and not by show
cause notice-for illegal harassment of
petitioner Rs. 25000/ awarded as costrecovery order quashed.

Held: Para-8
The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid
down
service
law
relating
to
the
departmental enquiries and services. It
is very clear from the ratio of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in above mentioned citations
that the enquiry should have commenced
during service by issue charge-sheet and
not mere by show cause notice. The
departmental enquiry proceedings are
not initiated merely by issuance of show
cause notice, it is initiated only when
charge-sheet has been issued (Union of
India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman). The Apex
Court itself ruled in 'Coal India Ltd. Vs.
Saroj Kumar Mishra' that the date of
application of mind on the allegations
leveled
against
an
officer
by
the
competent authority as a result whereof
the charge-sheet is issued would be the
date
on
which
the
disciplinary
proceedings
is
said
to
have
been
initiated and not prior thereto, therefore,
it is crystal clear that in the instant
petition the facts are attracted to the
ratio given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case
Jankiraman
(Supra),
therefore,
there
remains
no
doubt
that
the
respondents have violated the legal