# State of U.P. & Anr v. Prof. Bimal Jaiswal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 517
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 89 of 2025
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-prof-bimal-jaiswal-ors-53219
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Chapter VIII - Rule 5 - U.P. St.
University Act, 1973 - Sections 8(1),
12(12), 30(2), 31 & 66-A - U.P. Public
Service
(Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes
and
others
Backward Classes) Act, 1994 - Section
3(1)(c) - U.P. King George's Medical
University Act, 2002 - Sections 13 &
113(1) - Intra court Appeal - against order of
writ court - Allegations were made against a
Professor
regarding
irregularities
in
his
appointment to a reserved O.B.C. post and
subsequent administrative misconduct. - the St.
Government constituted a committee to conduct
an inquiry - challenged in writ petition - Writ
Court allowed the writ petition holding that the
St. Government lacked jurisdiction to conduct
the inquiry under the U.P. St. University Act,
1973 - Special Appeal - court held, - the St.
Government has power to institute an inquiry in
respect
of
allegations
levelled
against
respondent no. 1 - however, Inquiry committee
head by the Vice-Chanceller of the Lucknow
University is not correct - hence, judgment of
the Writ Court is set aside to the extent it
denied the St. Government's authority to
conduct an inquiry, - and Office Memorandum
dated 08.01.2025 was quashed, permitting the
St. Government to reconstitute the inquiry
committee under Section 8 of the Act - Special
appeal, partly allowed. (Para - 21, 22, 25)

Appeal Partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Prof. Bimal Jaiswal & Ors.
517
petition by the learned Single Judge
cannot be faulted.

18. The appeal has no substance,
the same is, therefore, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 517
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 89 of 2025

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Prof. Bimal Jaiswal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Nilaya Gupta, Anurag Kumar Singh

Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Chapter VIII - Rule 5 - U.P. St.
University Act, 1973 - Sections 8(1),
12(12), 30(2), 31 & 66-A - U.P. Public
Service
(Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes
and
others
Backward Classes) Act, 1994 - Section
3(1)(c) - U.P. King George's Medical
University Act, 2002 - Sections 13 &
113(1) - Intra court Appeal - against order of
writ court - Allegations were made against a
Professor
regarding
irregularities
in
his
appointment to a reserved O.B.C. post and
subsequent administrative misconduct. - the St.
Government constituted a committee to conduct
an inquiry - challenged in writ petition - Writ
Court allowed the writ petition holding that the
St. Government lacked jurisdiction to conduct
the inquiry under the U.P. St. University Act,
1973 - Special Appeal - court held, - the St.
Government has power to institute an inquiry in
respect
of
allegations
levelled
against
respondent no. 1 - however, Inquiry committee
head by the Vice-Chanceller of the Lucknow
University is not correct - hence, judgment of
the Writ Court is set aside to the extent it
denied the St. Government's authority to
conduct an inquiry, - and Office Memorandum
dated 08.01.2025 was quashed, permitting the
St. Government to reconstitute the inquiry
committee under Section 8 of the Act - Special
appeal, partly allowed. (Para - 21, 22, 25)

Appeal Partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Neeraj Awasthi & ors.: (2006) 1
SCC 667,

2. Nishith Rai Vs St. of U.P.: (2018) 3 All.L.J.
683,

3. Anand Kumar Mishra Vs St. of U.P.: 2022 SCC
OnLine All 311

4. Rakesh Ranjan Verma Vs St. of Bihar: 1992
Suppl. 2 SCC 343,

5. Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs St. of U.P.: 2012 LCD
1017

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi J. & Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Kuldeep Pati
Tripathi, the learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Shri Nishant Shukla,
the learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, Shri Sandeep Dixit Senior
Advocate assisted by Shri Nilaya Gupta
Advocate, the learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1 and Shri Anurag Kumar
Singh, the learned Counsel for the
University of Lucknow.

2. By means of the instant Intra
Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule
5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
the appellants - State of U.P. and Special
Secretary, Department of Higher Education,
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have challenged the validity of a judgment
and order dated 27.01.2025 passed by a
Single Judge Bench of this Court in Writ-A
No.913 of 2025.

3. The aforesaid Writ petition was
filed by Prof. Bimal Jaiswal - the
respondent No.1 in this Special Appeal,
challenging the validity of an Office Order
dated 08.01.2025 issued by the State
Government
whereby
the
State
Government has constituted a Committee
for conducting an inquiry in relation to the
allegations levelled in the complaint dated
03.12.2024 submitted by an Advocate
against the appointment of the respondent
No.1 made in the year 2005 on the post of
Assistant
Professor
reserved
for
the
candidates belonging to Other Backward
Class
(Non-Creamy
Layer
Category),
irregularities committed by him in fixation
of examination centers, in appointment of
teachers,
foul
play/manipulation
in
awarding
marks
and
exploitation
of
research scholars etc. The constitution of
Committee is as follows: -

i
Vice
chancellor,
Lucknow
University,
Lucknow
Chairman
ii Shri D.P. Shahi, Joint Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government
of U.P. Member
iii Registrar, Chaudhary Charan
Singh
University,
Meerut
Member
iv
Regional
Higher
Education
Officer, Lucknow Member
The Committee has been directed
to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to
the Government within 15 days.

4. The aforesaid order was
challenged before the Writ Court on the
ground that the State Government does not
have jurisdiction to pass such an order
under provisions of the State Universities
Act, 1973. The Writ Court referred to
Sections 12 (12) and 66-A of the State
Universities Act, 1973 and held that none
of the aforesaid provisions empower the
State Government for conducting an
inquiry
regarding
allegations
against
appointment and working of a teacher of a
State University.

5. The Writ Court allowed the Writ
Petition and quashed the Office Order dated
08.01.2025
leaving
it
open
for
the
competent authority to pass a fresh order, if
required, in accordance with law under the
relevant Rules.

6. Challenging validity of the
aforesaid order, Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi,
the learned A.A.G. appearing for the
appellants,
has
submitted
that
the
respondent No.1 is the son of Prof. Siya
Ram Jaiswal, who was working as a
Professor in Lucknow University. The
respondent No.1 got appointed to a post
reserved for candidates belonging to Other
Backward Class (O.B.C.) category. Being
son of a Professor, the respondent No.1 was
not entitled to claim the benefit of
reservation for candidates belonging to
O.B.C. category. He obtained appointment
by concealing the fact that his father was a
Professor in the University and thereby
wrongly claimed the benefit of reservation.

7. The learned A.A.G. has
submitted that Section 8 (1) of U.P. State
Universities Act 1973 authorizes the State
Government to institute an inquiry in such
circumstances. This provision was not
considered by the Writ Court while
dismissing the Writ Petition. He has placed
reliance on the judgments passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of State of
3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Prof. Bimal Jaiswal & Ors.
519
U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi & Ors.: (2006) 1
SCC 667, Nishith Rai v. State of U.P.:
(2018) 3 All.L.J. 683, and Anand Kumar
Mishra v. State of U.P.: 2022 SCC
OnLine All 311.

8. Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, the
learned
counsel
for
the
Lucknow
University has submitted that the State
Government has power to institute an
inquiry as per Section 8 (1) of the State
Universities Act, 1973 and thus he has
supported the appellants.

9. Per Contra, Shri Sandeep Dixit
Senior
Advocate
representing
the
respondent
No.1
has
submitted
that
although it is not disputed that father of the
respondent No.1 was a Professor and his
initial appointment made in the year 2003
on the post of Assistant Professor may be
defective, but subsequently the services of
the respondent No.1 on the post of
Assistant Professor were confirmed and in
due course of time, he has been appointed
to a post of Professor. No objection
regarding his initial appointment was raised
either at the time of confirmation of the
services of the respondent No.1 or at the
time of his appointment to the post of
Professor. The action has been initiated
almost 12 years after the appointment of
the respondent No.1 on the basis of a
complaint submitted by an Advocate, who
has no concern with the appointment of the
respondent No.1 and who appears to be a
mere name-lender.

10. Shri Dixit has submitted that
Lucknow University is an autonomous
body. The Executive Council of the
University has authority to take any action
on any complaint against a Professor and
the
State
Government
has no
such
authority. Shri Dixit has relied upon the
judgments in the cases of Rakesh Ranjan
Verma v. State of Bihar: 1992 Suppl. 2
SCC 343 and Smt. Rekha Yadav v. State
of U.P.: 2012 LCD 1017.

11. A candidate belonging to
O.B.C. category is entitled to reservation as
per the provisions contained in Section
3(1)(c) of U.P. Public Services (Reservation
for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes &
Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, which
provides as follows:-

"3. Reservation in favour
of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribe
and
other
Backward
Classes.-(1) In public services
and posts, there shall be reserved
at the stage of direct recruitment,
the
following
percentages
of
vacancies to which recruitments
are to be made in accordance with
the roster referred to in sub-section
(5) in favour of the persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes
and
other
backward classes of citizens,-
(a) in the case of Scheduled
Castes twenty one per cent;
(b) in the case of Scheduled
Tribes two per cent;
(c) in the case of other
backward classes of citizens twenty
seven per cent:
Provided
that
the
reservation under clause (c) shall
not apply to the category of other
backward
classes
of
citizens
specified in Schedule II.
* * *

12. Schedule II appended to the
aforesaid Act is as follows:-

1. Son or daughter of-
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(a) a member of Indian
Administrative
Services
Indian
Foreign Service, Indian Police
Service, Indian Forest Service or
other Central Service whether
directly recruited or promoted from
any State Service; or
(b) a member of Uttar
Pradesh Civil Service (Executive
Branch), Uttar Pradesh Police
Service or other State Service, who
has been directly recruited to such
Service; or
(c) such Group A/Class I
officer of any Department or
Ministry of Government of India or
educational, research or other
institutions under such Department
or Ministry, who is not included in
sub-category (a); or
(d) such Group A/Class I
officer or any Department or
institution of the State Government,
who is not included in sub-category
(b); or
(e) an officer of the defence
forces or para military forces who
is not below the rank of a Colonel
or equivalent rank:
Provided that the income
from salary of such member or
service or officer is Rupees ten
thousand or more per mensum, his
spouse is at least a graduate and he
or his spouse owns a house in an
urban area.
2. Son or daughter of a
person engaged in profession as a
doctor, surgeon, engineer, lawyer,
architect, Chartered Accountant,
media
and
information
professional,
management
and
other consultant, film artist and
other film professional, running
educational institution or coaching
institute or ensued in the business
as share or stock broker or in
entertainment business;
Provided that his average
income from all sources for, three
consecutive financial years is not
less than rupees ten lakh per
annum, his spouse is atleast a
graduate and his family owns
immovable property worth atleast
rupees twenty lakh.
3. Son or daughter of a
business
man
whose
average
income
for
three
consecutive
financial years is not less than
rupees ten lakh per annum, his
spouse is atleast a graduate and his
family owns immovable property
worth atleast rupees twenty lakh.
4. Son or daughter of an
industrialist
whose
level
of
investment in running units is over
rupees ten crore and such units are
engaged in commercial production
for atleast five years and his spouse
is atleast a graduate.
5. Son or daughter of a
person who has holding within the
limit fixed under the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960, has an income
of rupees lakh in a financial year
from sources other than agriculture
such as salary, business or industry
and the like and his spouse is
atleast a graduate.

6. Son or daughter of a
person, not included in any of the
aforementioned categories whose
average income from all sources
for three consecutive financial
years is not less than rupees ten
lakh per annum, his spouse is
atleast a graduate and his family
3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Prof. Bimal Jaiswal & Ors.
521
owns movable property worth at
least rupees twenty lakh."

13. A copy of the Writ petition has
been annexed with the Special Appeal, a
perusal whereof shows that in para-12 (i) of
the Writ petition, it has been pleaded that
the respondent No.1 belongs to 'Kalwar'
(Jaiswal caste) which is recognized as
Other Backward Class (O.B.C.). However,
the respondent No.1 has not pleaded
anything about the status of his father at the
time of his appointment and he has not
pleaded that he does not fall in any of the
categories
mentioned
in
Schedule
II
appended to the Reservation Act, 1994.

14. A bare perusal of the Office
Order dated 08.01.2015 challenged in the
Writ Petition indicates that besides a
complaint regarding appointment of the
respondent No.1 against a post reserved for
O.B.C. (non-creamy layer), there are also
complaints against him regarding certain
irregularities committed in fixation of
examination
centers,
appointment
of
teachers,
foul
play/manipulation
in
awarding
marks
and
exploitation
of
research scholars etc.

15. Chapter-III of the State
Universities
Act,
1973
deals
with
"Inspection and Inquiry". Section 8 of the
State Universities Act, 1973 falling in
Chapter - III provides as follows: -

"(1)
The
State
Government shall have the right to
cause an inspection to be made by
such person or persons as it may
direct, of the University or any
constituent college or any Institute
maintained
by
the
University,
including its buildings, libraries,
laboratories,
workshops
and
equipment
and
also
of
the
examinations, teaching and other
work conducted or done by the
University or such colleges or
Institute or to cause an inquiry to
be made in the like manner in
respect of any matter connected
with
the
administration
and
finances of the University or such
college or such Institute.
(2)
Where
the
State
Government decides to cause an
inspection or inquiry to be made
under sub-section (1), it shall
inform the University of the same
through the Registrar, and any
person nominated by the Executive
Council may be present at such
inspection
or
inquiry
as
representative of the University and
he shall have the right to be heard
as such:
Provided that no legal
practitioner shall appear, plead or
act on behalf of the University at
such inspection or inquiry.

(3) The person or persons
appointed to inspect or inquire
under sub-section (1) shall have all
the powers of a Civil Court, while
trying a suit under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, for the
purpose of taking evidence on oath
and enforcing the attendance of
witnesses
and
compelling
production
of
documents
and
material objects, and shall be
deemed to be a Civil Court within
the meaning of Sections 345 and
346 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973,
and
any
proceeding before him or them
shall be deemed to be judicial
proceeding within the meaning of
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian
Penal Code.
(4)The State Government
shall address the Vice-Chancellor
with reference to the result of such
inspection or inquiry, and the ViceChancellor shall communicate to
the Executive Council the views of
the State Government with such
advice as the State Government
may offer upon the action to be
taken thereon.
(5) The Vice-Chancellor
shall then within such time as the
State Government may fix, submit
to it a report of the action taken or
proposed to be taken by the
Executive Council.
(6)
If
the
University
authorities
do
not
within
a
reasonable time, take action to the
satisfaction
of
the
State
Government, the Government may,
after considering any explanation
which the University authorities
may furnish, issue such directions
as it may think fit, and the
University authorities shall be
bound
to
comply
with
such
directions.
(7) The State Government
shall send to the Chancellor a copy
of every report of an inspection or
inquiry caused to be made under
sub-section
(1)
and
of
every
communication received from the
Vice-Chancellor under sub-section
(5) and of every direction issued
under sub-section (6) and also of
every
report
or
information
received in respect of compliance
or
non-compliance
with
such
direction
(8) Without prejudice to the
provisions of sub-section (6) if the
Chancellor on consideration of any
document or material referred to in
sub-section (7) of this section
including any report of an inquiry
held before the commencement of
this Act, is of opinion that the
Executive Council has failed to
carry out its functions or has
abused its powers, he may, after
giving
it
an
opportunity
of
submitting a Written explanation,
order that in supersession, of the
said Executive Council, an ad hoc
Execution Council, consisting of
the Vice-Chancellor and such other
persons not exceeding ten in
number as the Chancellor may
appoint in that behalf including any
member
of
the
superseded
Executive Council, shall for such
period not exceeding two years as
the Chancellor may from time to
time specify, and subject to the
provisions of sub-section (11),
exercise and perform all the powers
and functions of the Executive
Council under this Act.
(9) Nothing in Section 20
shall apply to the composition of
the ad hoc Executive Council that
may be constituted under subsection (8).
(10) Upon an order being
made under sub-section (8), the
term of office of all members of the
Executive
Council
superseded
thereby,
including
ex
officio
members, shall cease and all such
members shall vacate their offices
as such.
(11) During the period of
operation of an order under subsection (8), the provisions of this
Act, shall have effect subject to the
following modifications, namely -
3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Prof. Bimal Jaiswal & Ors.
523
(a) in Section 20, after subsection (5), the following subsection shall be deemed inserted :
(6)'A
meeting
of
the
Executive Council shall be held at
least once every two months';
(b)in Section 21, in subsection (1), after the words 'subject
to the provisions of this Act', the
words 'and subject also to the
control of the Chancellor' shall be
deemed inserted;
(c)in Section 24, in subsection (2), the words 'and shall
upon a requisition in Writing
signed by not less than one-fourth
of the total membership of the
Court' shall be deemed omitted
(12) A fresh Executive
Council shall be constituted in
accordance with the provisions of
Section 20 with effect from the
expiration
of
the
period
of
operation of an order under subsection (8).
(13)
Any
Statute,
Ordinance, Regulation or other
rules made during the period of
operation of order under subsection (8), in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, as deemed
modified by virtue of the provisions
of
sub-section
(11)
shall,
notwithstanding the expiration of
such period, continue in force until
amended, repealed or rescinded in
accordance with the provisions of
this Act."

16. A bare perusal of the
aforesaid statutory provision indicates
that the State Government has the right to
cause an inquiry to be made in respect of
any
matter
connected
with
the
administration and finances of a State
University. Any illegality committed in
appointment of a teacher and any
illegality / irregularity committed by a
teacher in his working, are matters
connected with the administration of the
Universities. Payment of salary to a
teacher who has been appointed in an
illegal manner, is a matter connected with
the
finances
of
the
Universities.
Therefore, the State Government has
power under Section 8 (1) of the State
Universities Act to get an inquiry
conducted in respect of allegations
regarding illegal appointment of a teacher
as also regarding irregularities committed
by him in performance of his duties.

17. Before the Writ Court, it was
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the State Government has no power to
order such an enquiry under Section 66-A
and 12(2) of the State Universities Act
and case-laws were submitted in support
of that submission. This submission was
rightly accepted by the Writ Court as the
aforesaid Statutory provisions are not
attracted to such a situation. However, the
provisions of Section 8 of the State
Universities Act were not placed before
the Writ Court and, therefore, the same
escaped attention of the Writ Court. Since
the effect and scope of the provision
contained in Section 8 of the State
Universities Act
is
purely
a
legal
question, the same can be raised and
entertained for the first time in this Intra
Court appeal. The learned Counsel for the
respondent no. 1 rightly did not raise any
objection against this point being raised
for the first time in this Special Appeal.

18. In the case of Anand Kumar
Mishra v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine
All 311, the issue involved was regarding
the
scope
of
powers
of
the
State
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government under Section 13 of the U.P.
King George's Medical University Act,
2002, which reads as under:-

"13
(1)
The
State
Government shall have the right to
cause an inspection to be made by
such person or persons. as it may
direct, of the University including
its
buildings,
libraries,
laboratories,
workshops
and
equipment
and
also
of
the
examinations teaching and all
other works conducted or done by
the University or, to cause an
inquiry to be made in the like
manner in respect of any matter
connected with the administration
and finances of the University.
(2)
Where
the
State
Government decides to cause an
inspection or inquiry to be made
under sub-section (1), it shall
inform the University of the same
through the Registrar, and any
person nominated by the Executive
Council may be present at such
inspection
or
inquiry
as
representative of the University and
he shall have the right to be heard
as such: Provided that no person
shall appear, plead or act as legal
practitioner on behalf of the
University at such inspection or
inquiry.
(3) The person or persons
appointed to inspect or inquire
under sub-section (1) shall have all
the powers of a civil court, while
trying a suit under the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, for the
purposes of taking evidence on
oath
and
of
enforcing
the
attendance
of
witnesses
and
compelling
production
of
documents and material objects,
and shall be deemed to be a civil
court
within
the
meaning
of
sections 345 and 346 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
and the proceedings before him or
them shall be deemed to be judicial
proceedings within the meaning of
sections 193 and 228 of the Penal
Code, 1860.
(4) The State Government
shall address the Vice Chancellor
with reference to the result of such
inspection or inquiry, and the ViceChancellor shall communicate to
the Executive Council the views of
the State Government with such
advice as the State Government
may offer upon the action to be
taken thereon.
(5) The Vice-Chancellor
shall then, within such time as the
State Government may fix, submit
to it a report of the action taken or
proposed to be taken by the
Executive Council.
(6)
If
the
University
authorities
do
not,
within
a
reasonable time, take action to the
satisfaction
of
the
State
Government, the State Government
may,
after
considering
any
explanation which the University
authorities may furnish, issue such
directions, as it may think fit, and
the University authorities shall be
bound
to
comply
with
such
directions.
(7) The State Government
shall send to the Chancellor a copy
of every report of an inspection or
inquiry caused to be made under
sub-section
(1)
and
of
every
communication received from the
Vice-Chancellor under sub-section
3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Prof. Bimal Jaiswal & Ors.
525
(5), and of every direction issued
under sub-section (6), and also of
every
report
or
information
received in respect of compliance
or non compliance with such
directions."

19. Section 13 (1) of the U.P. King
George's Medical University Act, 2002 is
worded in the same manner as Section 8 (1)
of the State Universities Act. While
interpreting the aforesaid provision, this
Court held that:-

"23. As far as Section 13 is
concerned, there is no doubt that
the State Government has a right to
cause an inspection to be made by
such person or persons, as it may
direct, of the University including
its
buildings,
libraries,
laboratories,
workshops
and
equipment
and
also
of
the
examinations teaching and all
other works conducted or done by
the University or, to cause an
inquiry to be made in the like
manner in respect of any matter
connected with the administration
and finances of the University. The
provision is quite wide in its scope
as to the subject matter of such
inquiry considering the use of the
words
"and
all
other
works
conducted
or
done
by
the
University" and "to cause an
inquiry to be made in the like
manner in respect of any matter
connected with the administration
and finances of the University".
The term ''administration' used
therein
has
a
wide
import/meaning so as to include
any illegal appointment(s) in the
University, but then, as is borne
out from the provision such
inspection or inquiry as envisaged
therein is to be conducted by a
person other than one involved in
the functioning of the University.
If any action is to be taken under
Section 13, then entire procedure is
provided in the said Section itself.
There
is
nothing
on
record
including the counter affidavit filed
by the State Government to show
that any such procedure was
adopted. For example sub Section
(2) of Section 13 says where the
State Government decides to cause
an inspection or inquiry to be made
under sub-section (1), it shall
inform the University of the same
through the Registrar, and any
person nominated by the Executive
Council may be present at such
inspection
or
inquiry
as
representative of the University and
he shall have the right to be heard
as such. Sub-Section (4) requires
addressing of
report
of
such
inspection or inquiry to the Vice
Chancellor who in turn shall place
it before the Executive Council with
such
advice
as
the
State
Government may offer upon the
action to be taken thereon. A report
of the action taken is to be
submitted by the Vice Chancellor to
the State Government under subSection (5). This procedure has not
been followed. Nevertheless, the
State Government does have wide
powers to get an inspection or
inquiry conducted under Section
13 of the 2002 Act and also to
issue direction to the University
under sub-Section (6) if the
University fails to take action and
the University authorities are
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bound
to
comply
with
such
directions and in this case it had
sought a report from the University
before issuing the order dated
02.06.2020."

(Emphasis added)

20. We are in agreement with the
aforesaid view taken by the Single Judge
Bench of this Court in Anand Kumar
Mishra (Supra), including the view that the
inquiry as envisaged in Section 8(1) of the
State Universities Act, is to be conducted
by a person other than one involved in
functioning of the university.

21. The State Government has
appointed an Inquiry Committee headed by
the
Vice-Chancellor
of
Lucknow
University. Section 31 of the State
Universities Act provides that the teachers
of the University shall be appointed by the
Executive Council of the University. As per
Section 30 (2) of the State Universities Act,
the Vice-Chancellor is the Chairman of the
Executive Council.

22. In these circumstances, the
Vice-Chancellor ought not to have been
made the Chairperson or even a Member of
the Inquiry Committee. Therefore, while
holding that the State Government has
power to institute an inquiry in respect of
allegations levelled against the respondent
No.1, we are of the view that the
Constitution of the Inquiry Committee in so
far as it is headed by the Vice-Chancellor of
the Lucknow University, is not correct and
the State Government should constitute a
fresh Committee in which no person
involved in the functioning of the Lucknow
University shall be a Member as per the
law laid down in Anand Kumar Mishra
(Supra). Further, the State Government
shall follow the procedure laid down in
Section 8 of the State Universities Act.

23. The other two judgments cited
by the learned A.A.G., namely State of
U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi & Ors. and
Nishith Rai v. State of U.P., (supra) do not
deal with the provisions of the State
Universities Act or any other statutory
provision similar thereto and, therefore,
those judgments are not relevant for
decision of the present appeal.

24. The judgments in the cases of
Rakesh Ranjan Verma v. State of Bihar
and Smt. Rekha Yadav v. State of U.P.
(supra) cited by the learned Counsel for
the respondent no. 1 also do not deal with
the provisions of the State Universities Act
or any other statutory provision similar
thereto and, therefore, those judgments are
also not relevant for decision of the present
appeal.

25. Accordingly, the Special
Appeal is hereby allowed in part. The
judgment and order dated 10.05.2022
passed by the Writ Court in Writ-A
No.9049 of 2020 is set-aside to the extent
it holds that the State Government has no
authority to get an enquiry conducted in
respect of the allegations levelled against
the respondent no. 1. However, the Office
Memorandum dated 08.01.2025 constituting
the Enquiry Committee is set aside for the
reason that the Vice-Chancellor of the
University cannot be the Chairman/Member
of the Enquiry Committee. The State
Government shall be at liberty to constitute a
fresh Inquiry Committee consisting of
persons not involved in the functioning of the
University and to proceed afresh keeping in
view the provisions contained in Section 8 of
the State Universities Act.
3 All. Dinesh Kumar Kureel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
527
26. Parties to bear their own costs
of litigation.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 527
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 2154 of 2025

Dinesh Kumar Kureel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sudeep Kumar, Rajan Mishra, Umesh Chandra
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K. Upadhyaya)

A. Service Law-Disciplinary ProceedingsReliance on Preliminary Inquiry-Violation
of
Natural
Justice-The
petitioner
challenged the disciplinary order dated
06.11.2024, whereby the punishment of
stoppage
of
three
increments
with
cumulative effect was imposed based on
findings from a preliminary inquiry-The
Court observed that the petitioner was not
associated with the preliminary inquiry,
and
no
witnesses
or
documentary
evidence
were
produced
during
the
regular
inquiry
to
substantiate
the
charges-Additional material relied upon in
the inquiry was neither supplied to the
petitioner nor was he given a chance to
rebut the same-the court emphasized
that reliance on a preliminary inquiry,
without
conducting
a
full-fledged
disciplinary
inquiry
involving
examination and cross-examination of
witnesses, is in violation of principles of
natural
justice-Held,
the
inquiry
proceedings
and
the
impugned
punishment order are vitiated due to
serious procedural lapses and violation
of natural justice.(Para 1 to 29)
The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs St. of Guj. & anr. (2013)4
SCC 301.

2. Satyendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2024) SCC
Online SC 3325

3. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned
counsel for petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for respondents and Sri
R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for
respondent.

2. The grievance raised by the
petitioner in the present writ petition is with
regard to order dated 06.01.2024 passed by
the State of U.P. thereby inflicting the
punishment of stoppage of three increments
permanently with cumulative effect on
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel
for
petitioner
that
present
controversy relates to progress of the
Harchandpur - Sirsaghat Road which was
for a length of 0.968 kms. which in the
review meeting Chaired by the concerned
Minister
was
shown
to
have
been
completed.

4. It has been submitted that during
an inquiry conducted by the Chief Engineer
Central
Public
Works
Department,
Lucknow on 13.10.2022, it was found that
47 meters of the road had not been
completed and work was still remaining.
Accordingly,
it
is
for
the
incorrect
information supplied to the authorities, the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated