# State of U.P. & Ors v. Bhimsen Singh

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 304
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 14029 of 2025
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur, Amitabh Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-bhimsen-singh-54354
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on record before the competent authority indicating that the claimant is in fact the legal heir of the
deceased government servant, then his claim should be processed in accordance with law.

25. In the present case, we have been informed that a succession certificate was issued in
favour of the petitioner indicating that he is a legal heir of the deceased government servant. Once
it has been certified after inspection that the claimant is in fact the legal heir, merely because there
is a clause in the certificate limiting the claim to Rs. 5,000/- will not disentitle the petitioner from
receiving the reimbursement even if the claim exceeds that limit. This Court is also of the view that
a person should not be forced to obtain a succession certificate declaring him to be a legal heir in a
situation where no such dispute exists.

26. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 10.01.2023 is quashed. Rule 16 of the Rules, 2011 shall be read so as to include within its
ambit the submission of claims by legal heirs of the beneficiary in cases where the beneficiary dies
or becomes incapacitated during the course of treatment and there is no other surviving beneficiary
who can submit the reimbursement claim. Accordingly, respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the
claim of the petitioner by treating it as a valid claim under Rule 16 of the Rules, 2011 and to decide
the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of
this order is produced before him. In case the claim is found to be in order in accordance with law,
the necessary payment shall be disbursed expeditiously within one month thereafter.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 304
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ A No. 14029 of 2025

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
Bhimsen Singh ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether the State can interfere in a private dispute of tenancy by initiating disciplinary proceedings?

Headnotes
A. Service/Tenancy Law - Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1991: Rule 14(2) - To be termed as 'misconduct', the conduct of delinquent
employee has to be judged on the touchstone that whether such conduct is purely private not
related to discharge of his official duty and in such circumstances the employee cannot be
subjected to disciplinary proceedings. (Para 20)
3 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Bhimsen Singh
305
The charge against the respondent does not contain any allegation of misuse of his official status
in the alleged incident nor there is allegation that the conduct of the respondent can be termed
as unbecoming of a government servant. (Para 19)

The allegations leveled in the show cause notice refer to a private dispute between the respondent and the
complainant w.r.t. the respondent overstaying in the tenanted premises beyond the agreement entered into
between them, and such a dispute was essentially a private dispute between the landlord and the
tenant, and in such a dispute no interference of the employer is required. The allegation against the
respondent is in no way connected to discharge of his official duties and is outside the ambit and scope of
U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. (Para 19)

B. No reason whatsoever has been indicated by the Superintendent of Police in rejecting the
representation of the petitioner and accordingly the same is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to
be set aside. (Para 18, 19)

In the case in hand there was a tenancy dispute and the complainant was at liberty to approach the court of
competent jurisdiction to seek eviction of the respondent. There was no element of failure in discharge of
official duty by the respondent which could have invited disciplinary proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Criminal proceedings have also been
initiated which are pending before the court of competent jurisdiction and the respondent would be left to its
own fate in the said proceeding, but the State certainly ought not to have interfered in a private
dispute of tenancy by initiating disciplinary proceedings. (Para 22)

For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, is upheld.
(Para 23)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 (Para 6)
2. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155 (Para 20)
3. Pravina Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2001 All LJ 1706 (Para 21)

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

List of Keywords
 fine, penalty, jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, administrative authority, unreasonable, judicial review, delinquent,
principles of natural justice.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): C.S.C.
For Respondent(s): Anupam Shukla, Manish Vaish

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. &
Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Sri Akash
Deep Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anupak Shukla, learned counsel for respondents.
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 1/4/2024 passed by the Uttar
Pradesh State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby the claim preferred by the Respondent
has been allowed and the order of punishment dated 6/10/2021, appellate order dated 26/3/2022
and revisional order dated 28/7/2022 have been set aside, as well as the imposition of fine which
was awarded to the Respondent has also been set aside.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Respondent was working on the
post of Head Constable in the civil police in district Basti. He was served with a show cause notice
on 07.09.2021, according to which it was stated that a complaint had been received from one
Nirmala Devi, wife of Rajendra Kumar Gupta, that the respondent had taken her house on rent for
an amount of Rs. 1200/- per month and despite the fact that he had been transferred out of Deoria
but still he has not vacated the said premises and he is illegally in occupation of the tenanted
property.

4. Apart from this, it was further alleged that on 19/05/2021, the Respondent as well as his
family members had assaulted her, on account of which she had lodged a non-cognizable report
(NCR) with the police on 19.02.2021. According to the show cause notice, it was stated that a
preliminary inquiry had been conducted by the Circle Officer, Kaylari Basti, where the Respondent
had been found to be guilty of not upholding the traditions of the police force and also for being
negligent, indiscipline and not discharging his duties in accordance with law. The Respondent had
submitted his reply to the show cause notice and denied all the allegations leveled therein. The
matter was concluded when after considering the reply of the Respondent, the imposition of fine
was awarded to him by means of order dated 6/10/2021.

5. Being aggrieved by the imposition of fine awarded by means of the order dated 6/10/2021,
the Respondent had filed a departmental appeal before Respondent No 3/ Inspector General of
Police, Basti, which had been rejected on 26/3/2022, and further a revision before Respondent
Number 2/ Additional Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur, dated 28/7/2022.
All the said orders were challenged by him before the UP States Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow,
by filing a claim petition in claim petition No. 1509 of 2023.

6. It was contended on behalf of the Respondent that the procedure prescribed for awarding
the imposition of penalty was not followed. It was further stated that no reasons were given in the
impugned order for rejecting the grounds taken by the Respondent in his objections to the show
cause notice. The State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, in the aforementioned circumstances, in
passing the impugned judgment was of the view that no reasons has been stated in the order dated
6/10/2021, and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs.
Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 where it has been held that the reasons must be recorded while
rejecting the representation and it is further necessary that the reasons are clear and explicit, so as
to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the point in controversy and applied its
mind.

7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, while assailing the validity of the order dated
01.04.2024, had submitted that the impugned judgment is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as a
perusal of the impugned order would indicate that sufficient reasons were indicated by the
3 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Bhimsen Singh
307
Superintendent of Police, in awarding an imposition of fine on the respondent. It was stated that in
this regard, the impugned judgment is illegal, arbitrary, and perverse, and sought interference by
this Court in the said order.

8. Apart from the aforesaid facts, this Court has put a query to the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel to indicate as to whether the dispute between the tenant and the landlord can be
termed as a misconduct so as to initiate disciplinary proceedings and ultimately leading to
punishment under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991.

9. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that, in case it is found that there
is a link between the discharge of his duties as a police constable and his conduct in his personal
life then certainly disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against him, but did not deny the fact
that a golden thread has to be found linking the misconduct with discharge of his official duties.

10. Sri Akashdeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has opposed
the writ petition. He has submitted that the award of the imposition of fine is clearly illegal and
arbitrary and beyond the competence and jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police. He has
submitted that a private dispute cannot be termed as a misconduct under the Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and, consequently even
the notice issued to the respondent was bereft of any jurisdiction. He has submitted that a perusal of
the notice itself would indicate that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant was a
pure private dispute wherein Smt. Nirmala Devi-the complainant was seeking to evict the
respondent from the tenanted premises whereas due to family compulsions of transfers and being
posted in various districts, the respondent was not given any official accommodation which
compelled him to continue in occupation of the tenanted premises.

11. He has further submitted that it is only an effort to get the respondent and his family to be
evicted from the tenanted premises, the complainant has resorted to filing a false complaint against
the respondent which has resulted in disciplinary proceedings against him and she has also lodged
of a non-cognizable report with the police. He has submitted that, merely on account of lodging of
a non-cognizable report, it cannot lead to an irrefutable conclusion that the respondent has been
held to be guilty of the offences charged against him, and accordingly merely on the basis of
lodging of a NCR cannot result in an award of imposition of fine.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the rival contentions and perused the record. There is
no dispute regarding the facts as narrated above, and the state has questioned the validity of the
judgment passed by the UP State Public Service Tribunal, dated 1/4/2024. We have also carefully
perused the letters of 6/10/2022. A perusal of the said order indicates that a show cause notice was
given to the respondent, and the entire details of the show cause notice have been narrated in the
said order.

13. Subsequently, the response and objection filed by the respondent have been reproduced,
wherein it is stated that the respondent has taken a house on rent from the complainant, namely
Nirmala Devi, W/o Rajendra Kumar Gupta, District Deoria. He further stated that both the parties
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had consented for the aforesaid agreement, and the rent for the two-room accommodation was
settled at Rs. 1200/- per month. Further, that despite the respondent's transfer, the said premises
were not evacuated/evicted by him, and it is in this regard that a complaint was made against the
respondent to his superiors. Subsequently, an incident also occurred on 19.05.2021, where both
families had entered into an altercation and it seems that some injuries were also sustained by
Nirmala Devi due to which the non-cognizable report No. 46/2021, under Section 323 IPC was
lodged.

14. The only conclusion drawn by the Superintendent of Police is that his reply/objection had
not been found satisfactory, resulting in award of imposition of fine equivalent to 30 days salary
under Rule 14 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991. From the aforesaid, it is evident that, after narrating the entire facts, the only
reason given by the Superintendent of Police was that the respondent's reply was not found to be
satisfactory.

15. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, when we go through the impugned judgment passed by
the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, we find that they have correctly returned the finding that no
reasons have been recorded by the Superintendent of Police while passing the impugned order
dated 6/10/2021.

16. Undoubtedly, reasons are the heartbeat of any order, and bereft of reasons, such an order
would be arbitrary and illegal. Whenever a reply is tendered against a show cause notice, even if it
is found to be unsatisfactory, the competent authority has to record reasons for the rejection of such
objections while giving cogent reasons. In case reasons are not given, then such an exercise itself
becomes arbitrary inasmuch as it deprives the benefit to the superior authorities for adjudicating
such an order passed by the competent authority nor does it disclose the reason for rejecting the
defence of the delinquent employee which may enable the competent authority to act unreasonably
and arbitrarily. We further find that the Supreme Court has also on numerous occasions held that
reasons are required to be given while passing any order.

17. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (1990) 4
SCC 594 has held as under:-

"36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it
while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction
by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which
have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons
for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of
reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of
arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose
would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are
subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that
reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasijudicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or
judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as
3 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Bhimsen Singh
309
elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend
on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit
so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The
need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage.
The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if
the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under
challenge."

18. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that no reason whatsoever has been indicated by the
Superintendent of Police in rejecting the representation of the petitioner and accordingly the same
is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

19. Once we have held that the order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice, the usual course is to remand the matter back for consideration afresh as has been
prayed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. We have given our anxious consideration to
the submissions on behalf of the State and we find that the same ought to be rejected in the facts of
the present case. We found that the allegations leveled in the show cause notice refer to a private
dispute between the respondent and the complainant with regard to the respondent overstaying in
the tenanted premises beyond the agreement entered into between them, and such a dispute was
essentially a private dispute between the landlord and the tenant, and in such a dispute no
interference of the employer is required. We find that the allegation against the respondent is in no
way connected to discharge of his official duties and is outside the ambit and scope of U.P.
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. The charge against the respondent do not contain any
allegation of misuse of his official status in the alleged incident nor there is allegation that the
conduct of the respondent can be termed as unbecoming of a government servant.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen, AIR
1965 SC 155 while interpreting the certified standing order regarding the term 'misconduct' has
held the conduct of delinquent employee has to be judged on the touchstone that whether such
conduct is purely private not related to discharge of his official duty and in such circumstances the
employee cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The para 2 of the judgment in the case
of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. (Supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"2. The first point which calls for our decision in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was
right in holding that the facts proved against Raghavan did not attract the provisions of Standing
Order 22(viii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the appellant. The said standing order provides
that without prejudice to the general meaning of the term "misconduct", it shall be deemed to mean
and include, inter alia, drunkenness, fighting, riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour within or
without the factory. It is common ground that the alleged assault took place outside the factory,
and, in fact, at a considerable distance from it. The Tribunal has held that the assault in question
can be treated as a purely private matter between Raghavan and Augustine with which the
appellant was not concerned and as a result of which standing order 22(viii) cannot be invoked
against Raghavan. Mr. Menon who has appeared for the respondent before us, has contended that
in construing standing orders of this character, we must take care to see that disputes of a purely
private or individual type are not brought within their scope. He argues that on many occasions,
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
individual employees may have to deal with private disputes and sometimes, as a result -of these
private disputes, assault may be committed. Such an assault may attract the relevant provisions of
the Indian Penal Code, but it does not fall under standing order 22(viii). In our opinion, this
contention is well-founded. It would, we think, be unreasonable to include within standing order
22(viii) any riotous behaviour without the factory which was the result of purely private and
individual dispute and in course of which tempers of both the contestants became hot. In order that
standing order 22(viii) may be attracted, the appellant should be able to show that the disorderly
or riotous behaviour had some rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the
victim. "

21. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pravina Solanki Vs. State of U.P. &
others, 2001 All LJ 1706 held in para 5 as hereunder:-

 "5. There are no allegations against the petitioner that her conduct in any way affected
her official functions. There is also no allegation that she was on duty at the relevant time. In our
opinion, unless an employee does some act which interferes with his/her official function then
ordinarily whatever he/she does in his/her private life cannot be regarded as misconduct. In the
case of In re Rabindra Nath Ghosh, 1985 (1) SLR 598, this was the view taken by the Calcutta
High Court and this was also the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U. P. v.
B. N. Singh, AIR 1989 All 359. The position may have been different if the petitioner was doing the
aforesaid acts while on duty, but in the present case, she was at her residence late in the night, and
there is no allegation that she was on duty at that time. As held by this Court in the case of state of
U. P. v. B. N. Singh (supra), in order to bring a case of a Government servant within the definition
of personal immorality on the ground of habit of sex. it must be shown that this habit of the
Government servant has reduced his utility as a public servant so as to damage the government or
official generally in public esteem, in Sukhdeu Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 (2)SLR 645, the
Punjab High Court held that a constable under influence of alcohol while not on duty cannot be
held to be guilty of misconduct. In the present case, the petitioner was not having sex in a public
place but at her residence. Hence it cannot be said that she has committed any misconduct for
which she can be depart men tally proceeded against. "

22. In the case in hand there was a tenancy dispute and the complainant was at liberty to
approach the court of competent jurisdiction to seek eviction of the respondent. In such a
circumstance, we find that there was no element of failure in discharge of official duty by the
respondent which could have invited disciplinary proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. We notice that
criminal proceedings have also been initiated which are pending before the court of competent
jurisdiction and the respondent would be left to its own fate in the said proceeding, but the
State certainly ought not to have interfered in a private dispute of tenancy by initiating disciplinary
proceedings.

23. For the aforesaid reasons, we uphold the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by U.P. State
Public Service Tribunal and for the reasons aforesaid we do not find any ground for interference,
the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
3 All. Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
(2026) 3 ILRA 311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No. 18090 of 2020

Rakesh Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of denial of appointment to a selected candidate on the sole ground of his implication as a coaccused in criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute, particularly when the same was disclosed in
Application Form.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Appointment - Post of Junior Assistant - Petitioner was selected, but was
denied appointment, as he was not found suitable for government office on the sole ground that
he was implicated as a co-accused in FIR lodged under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 D. P. Act - Petitioner had duly disclosed the pendency of criminal case - Validity of
denial of appointment was challenged
Held : A perusal of the FIR indicates that only general and sweeping allegations have been made regarding
demand of dowry against all the family members, without assigning any specific role to the petitioner. The
offences alleged are punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, which, though cognizable, do not, in the facts of the present case, appear to be of such
gravity so as to render the petitioner unsuitable for public employment. The allegations, on the face of record,
appear to be trivial in nature and arise out of a domestic dispute, having no bearing on the discharge of duties
attached to the post in question - Youthful indiscretions and minor offences ought not to result in branding a
person as a criminal for life, and that the approach should be reformative rather than punitive - Pendency of
the criminal case, based on general allegations arising out of a matrimonial dispute, does not constitute a
valid ground to deny appointment to the petitioner. [Para 12, 13 and 14] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 - referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4.

List of Keywords
Appointment, Criminal case, Matrimonial dispute, Suitable for government office, Medically fit, Recruitment,
Criminal case of trivial nature, Discretion, General and sweeping allegations, Demand of dowry, Pubic
employment, Domestic dispute, Branding a person as a criminal for life, Reformative, Punitive, Jean Valjean,
Minor infractions, Lifelong adverse consequences.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the respondent denying appointment to the petitioner.