# Smt. Munni v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 342
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2479 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-munni-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53545
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
(A) Right of successor to get decided the
departmental appeal on merit even after the
death of the delinquent employee.
(B) Applicability of law of abatement in the
matter relating to the service jurisprudence.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Departmental appeal -
The delinquent employee was died during
the pendency of appeal - Effect - Right of
employee's successor to get the appeal
decided on merit - Entitlement :
Held : It is true that in service jurisprudence
employer and employee relationship ceases to
exist the moment contract of employment
ceases but where the service conditions are
governed by statutory rules, mere recitals
contained in the appointment order would not
govern service conditions - An employee if is
working in establishment, which may be a
pensionable establishment and where the family
pension rights are also vested with the
dependents of the family or otherwise also
where the dues are inherited by the dependents
of the employee by succession, such cause of
action would survive till the last available
statutory remedy is exhausted - Even an
employee's successor is entitled to question an
7 All. Smt. Munni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
343
order of the disciplinary authority as it has
serious adverse civil consequences - The
appellate authority was not justified in rejecting
the appeal following the principles of civil law of
abatement. [Paras 7 and 10] (E-1)
List of Acts
UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999.
List of Keywords
Departmental appeal; Punishment order; Death
of delinquent employee; Abatement; Service
jurisprudence; Law of substitution; Employee's
successor; Right of compassionate appointment;
Family pension.
Case Arising From
Order
of
Commissioner
dated
08.01.2025
dismissing the departmental appeal as abated.

## Text

342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence as defined under Sections 40, 41
and 42 of the Penal Code, 1860, Section
2(n) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, or Section 3(38) of the General
Clauses Act, 1897. The same analogy can
be drawn in the instant case though the
matter is not criminal in nature.

23. Thus, in view of the above, the
punishment order is not maintainable in the
eye of the law. In the result, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 8-7-2010 withholding the
integrity certificate for the year 2010 and
all subsequent orders in this regard are
quashed. The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the appellant for all
consequential
benefits
including
promotion, etc. if any, afresh taking into
consideration the service record of the
appellant in accordance with law."

11. I may further take notice of the
Government
order
which
directs
for
deduction of five marks for warning issued
to employee by considering promotion and
I find that the Government Order dated
27.09.2019, prescribes for deduction of
marks in the event warning issued to an
employee after issuing the show cause
notice. Thus, in the considered view of the
Court, this type of punishment even if
conceived of otherwise by means of any
circular or Government Order, it could not
have been imposed without giving notice
and
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
delinquent employee.

12. In view of the above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order dated
03.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 2, is
hereby quashed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 342
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 2479 of 2025

Smt. Munni ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pankaj Kumar Rai, Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
(A) Right of successor to get decided the
departmental appeal on merit even after the
death of the delinquent employee.
(B) Applicability of law of abatement in the
matter relating to the service jurisprudence.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Departmental appeal -
The delinquent employee was died during
the pendency of appeal - Effect - Right of
employee's successor to get the appeal
decided on merit - Entitlement :
Held : It is true that in service jurisprudence
employer and employee relationship ceases to
exist the moment contract of employment
ceases but where the service conditions are
governed by statutory rules, mere recitals
contained in the appointment order would not
govern service conditions - An employee if is
working in establishment, which may be a
pensionable establishment and where the family
pension rights are also vested with the
dependents of the family or otherwise also
where the dues are inherited by the dependents
of the employee by succession, such cause of
action would survive till the last available
statutory remedy is exhausted - Even an
employee's successor is entitled to question an
7 All. Smt. Munni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
343
order of the disciplinary authority as it has
serious adverse civil consequences - The
appellate authority was not justified in rejecting
the appeal following the principles of civil law of
abatement. [Paras 7 and 10] (E-1)
List of Acts
UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999.
List of Keywords
Departmental appeal; Punishment order; Death
of delinquent employee; Abatement; Service
jurisprudence; Law of substitution; Employee's
successor; Right of compassionate appointment;
Family pension.
Case Arising From
Order
of
Commissioner
dated
08.01.2025
dismissing the departmental appeal as abated.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar J.)

1. Heard SRi Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner has challenged the order
dated
08.01.2025
passed
by
the
Commissioner,
Varanasi
Division,
Varanasi
dismissing
the
departmental
appeal of husband of the petitioner on the
ground that appeal would abate on account
of death of the petitioner's husband.

3. The submission advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
departmental appeal preferred under Rule
11 of the U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 which
only provides for certain considerations on
points that may emerge out in the appeal
and hence the appeal would not be
dismissed as to have got abated on account
of death of her husband namely appellant in
the said appeal.

4. It is argued that no law of abatement
is attracted in the matter of service
jurisprudence as the incidence of service
which may entail monitory consequences
are inherited by the heirs accordingly and
in that event appeal had stood allowed, then
order of termination from service would
have stand set aside and all consequential
benefits would have been conferred upon to
the late husband of the petitioner and in
turn to be succeeded by the present
petitioner.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has
obtained instructions in the matter and the
instructions are absolutely silent to justify
the order passed by the appellate authority
namely Commissioner, Varanasi Division,
Varanasi.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records, I proceed to consider the
arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner after appreciating the relevant
provisions as contained under Rule 11 and
12 of the 1999 Rules. The provisions are
reproduced hereinunder:

".....11. Appeal. -

(1)Except
the
orders
passed
under these rules by the Governor, the
Government servant shall be entitled to
appeal to the next higher authority from an
order passed by the disciplinary authority.

(2)The appeal shall be addressed
and submitted to the appellate authority. A
Government servant preferring an appeal
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shall do so in his own name. The appeal
shall contain all material statements and
arguments relied upon by the appellant.

(3)The appeal shall not contain
any intemperate language. Any appeal,
which contains such language may be
liable to be summarily dismissed.

(4)The appeal shall be preferred
within
90
days
from
the
date
of
communication of impugned order. An
appeal preferred after the said period shall
be dismissed summarily.

12. Consideration of Appeals. -

The appellate authority shall pass
such order as mentioned in clauses (a) to
(d) of Rule 13 of these rules, in the appeal
as he thinks proper after considering.

(a)Whether the facts on which the
order was based have been established;

(b)Whether the facts established
afford sufficient ground for taking action;
and

(c)Whether
the
penalty
is
excessive, adequate or inadequate;"

7. Upon bare reading of the aforesaid
provisions of Rules, It becomes explicit
that a government servant is entitled to
prefer a statutory appeal against the order
passed by the disciplinary authority within
a period of 90 days and then upon reading
Rule 12, I find that the appellate authority
is required to look into and consider key
points that were given while testing the
order passed by the disciplinary authority.
Thus, there is no procedure prescribed, as
such, in the relevant provisions quoted that
may require delinquent employee to appear
and participate mandatorily so as to get the
appeal disposed off on merits. It is true that
in service jurisprudence employer and
employee relationship ceases to exist the
moment contract of employment ceases but
where the service conditions are governed
by statutory rules, mere recitals contained
in the appointment order would not govern
service conditions.

8. In service matters where official
records are maintained, heirs automatically
succeed to get the dues and no law of
substitution would be applicable. Contract
of appointment ceases with death of the
employee and appointment therefore, is not
succeeded by rules.

9. Here, in the case in hand, I find that
the U.P. Government has framed rules
namely
1999
Rules
providing
for
disciplinary actions to be taken against an
employee charged for any misconduct in
discharge of duties and in the event, the
charges are proved, the employee is liable
to be visited with such penalties which may
have adverse civil consequences.

10. In the circumstances, therefore, an
employee if is working in establishment,
which may be a pensionable establishment
and where the family pension rights are
also vested with the dependents of the
family or otherwise also where the dues are
inherited
by
the
dependents
of
the
employee by succession, such cause of
action would survive till the last available
statutory remedy is exhausted. Even an
employee's successor is entitled to question
an order of the disciplinary authority as it
has serious adverse civil consequences
resulting in the denial of post terminal dues
including
right
of
compassionate
appointment. Accordingly, the Court is of
this considered view that the appellate
7 All. Neelesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345
authority was not justified in rejecting the
appeal following the principles of civil law
of abatement where upon the death of a
party, the actionable claim comes to an end
unless and until heirs in succession pursued
the same.

11. In view of the above, the Court
finds the order passed by the appellate
authority to be unsustainable. Accordingly,
the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the
Commissioner,
Varanasi
Division,
Varanasi, is hereby quashed.

12. The departmental appeal of the
deceased employee stands restored before
the appellate authority with a direction to
dispose of the pending appeal on merits
within a maximum period of two months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 2983 of 2023

Neelesh Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashwani Kumar Yadav, Yakub Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra

Issue for Consideration
(A) Legality of the termination of contractual
employee, which was made on the basis of
recommendation
of
a
Committee,
not
constituted as per the prevailing law.
(B) Scope of writ power under Article 226 of the
Constitution to interfere in the matter of
contractual appointment.
(C) Applicability of Administrative Circular and
Government Order, when either Rule is absent
or Rule is silent on the concern issue.
Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Termination
-
Contractual appointment - Termination is
based on a recommendation made by the
District Health Committee - Earlier also
recommendation
was
made,
but
not
resulted into termination - No specific
charge except for the vague charges
regarding
dereliction
in
discharge
of
duties by the petitioner was made -
Circular prescribing for constitution of
District Health Committee to be consisting
of four members to assess the work of a
contractual employee and also to examine
the report of enquiry, was not followed -
Effect :
Held : The constitution of the District Health
Committee itself was de hors the rules/ circular.
It is a settled principle of law and so held by the
judgments of the Supreme Court and of this
Court where rules are silent or rules have not
been framed the administrative circular and the
Government
Order
shall
prevail
and
the
authorities are hide bound in law to follow these
procedure prescribed under the rules and the
circular letter - When rules require a particular
thing to be done in a prescribed manner, it
should be done in that manner alone - The
recommendations made by the committee which
was not duly constituted as per the circular
letter, should not have been considered and
ought not to have been made a ground to
rescind the contract of appointment of the
petitioner. [Paras 8, 9 and 11]
(B) Constitution of India,1950 - Article
226 - Writ - Scope of interference -
Matter
relating
to
termination
of
contractual appointment - Fairness in the