# State of U.P. & Ors v. Chandra Lal Sonkar

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 72
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-26
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4636 of 2022
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Narendra Kumar Johari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-chandra-lal-sonkar-48936
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Dismissal from service -
Misconduct - Making a call, how far
material for evaluating a misconduct - No
allegation of influencing the Court - Effect
- Held, call details do not seem to be a
collection of any incriminating material
except something which may doubt the
employer of a person in his personal
liberty being in contact with another
person of doubtful credentials - Mere
doubt on the part of the disciplinary
authority unless supported by a definite
damage or loss caused to the St., cannot
be evaluated to be a misconduct - Division
Bench of the High Court found no illegality
in the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal
for setting aside the impugned order of
dismissal from service. (Para 8, 9 and 10)
Writ dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

44. It is further noticed that mere
conducting preliminary inquiry cannot
amount to harassment as at this stage the
petitioner is not subjected to any adverse
consequences as a result of the said inquiry.
The Vigilance inquiry is a fact finding
inquiry
were
only
veracity
of
the
allegations are sought to be tested and it is
only when the allegations are found to be
correct then only disciplinary proceedings
are initiated and the petitioner is given
charge sheet.

45. Considering the aforesaid facts,
this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order, whereby
open Vigilance inquiry is sought to be
initiated against the petitioner.

46. The writ petition being devoid of
merits, is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 72
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

Writ A No. 4636 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chandra Lal Sonkar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:

A. Service Law - Dismissal from service -
Misconduct - Making a call, how far
material for evaluating a misconduct - No
allegation of influencing the Court - Effect
- Held, call details do not seem to be a
collection of any incriminating material
except something which may doubt the
employer of a person in his personal
liberty being in contact with another
person of doubtful credentials - Mere
doubt on the part of the disciplinary
authority unless supported by a definite
damage or loss caused to the St., cannot
be evaluated to be a misconduct - Division
Bench of the High Court found no illegality
in the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal
for setting aside the impugned order of
dismissal from service. (Para 8, 9 and 10)
Writ dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. S.B.I. & ors. Vs Samarendra Kishore Endow &
anr.; (1994) 2 SCC 537

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari, J.)

1. This writ petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by
the
State
is
directed
against
the
judgement/order dated 25.1.2022 rendered
by U.P. Public Service Tribunal in Claim
Petition No. 1528 of 2021.

2. The opposite party feeling
aggrieved against the order of dismissal
from service had instituted the claim
petition under Section 4 of the U.P. Public
Service Tribunal Act, 1976 and upon
exchange of the pleadings before the
Tribunal, the case was contested and
challenge to the order of dismissal from
service was upheld by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal passed the following order:

"Petition is allowed. Punishment
order dated 22.7.2021 (Annexure-1) is
quashed with all consequential benefits. It
8 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Chandra Lal Sonkar
73
will be open to the respondents to pass
some other appropriate punishment against
petitioner, if they are advised to do so. No
costs."

3. The facts in brief are that the
opposite party was proceeded against for
misconduct with the issuance of a charge
sheet on 7.10.2020. The charges were
levelled against the opposite party which
are reproduced in the impugned judgement.
The opposite party submitted his reply in
response to the charge sheet wherein all the
four charges were denied.

4. The enquiry officer submitted
enquiry report on 1.3.2021 based on which
a show cause notice was issued on
22.3.2021. The petitioner again submitted
his reply on 1.4.2021 and final punishment
order of dismissal from service was passed
on 227.2021 which was assailed before the
Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petition.

5. The Tribunal while adjudicating
upon the case, dealt with the rival
contentions and recorded its findings in
paragraphs 11 to 18 of the impugned
judgement.

6. For our consideration, the opinion
recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 28 is
reproduced hereunder:

"28. In the instant case, petitioner
has admitted having made calls to Usman
and Islam. There is not even an iota of
evidence that petitioner in any manner had
helped them or any relation with them. He
was not posted in the court of special judge
Anti Dacoity. It is his case that no officer
from prosecution cadre is posted in the said
court. ADGC drawn from bar is posted in
the said court. There is no allegation that
taking advantage of the position,he tried to
influence court There is no allegation of
any financial transaction or extraneous
factor while making calls. On the other
hand entire evidence lends support to the
defence case that in order to help policed
people, he was trying to mediate. In the
absence of mens rea it is not possible to
hold any employee guilty of misconduct."

7. It is in the light of paragraph 28
extracted above that we had put a definite
question to learned counsel for the State as
to
what
essentially
constituted
the
misconduct against the opposite party for
which the disciplinary proceedings were
drawn except procuring call details which
have neither diminished the confidentiality
of the State or a proceeding drawn by the
State against any culprit nor anything in the
matter of causing a financial loss was
pointed out on the basis of any material
whatsoever.

8. The call details do not seem to be a
collection of any incriminating material
except something which may doubt the
employer of a person in his personal liberty
being in contact with another person of
doubtful credentials.

9. In this situation mere doubt on the
part of the disciplinary authority unless
supported by a definite damage or loss
caused to the State, cannot be evaluated to
be a misconduct. Even the integrity of a
public servant proceeded against during
this period cannot be said to be under any
cloud unless the contents of conversation
were
ascertained
for
arriving
at
a
satisfaction to support the public cause. We
must emphasize that what lies within the
mind of a public servant or any human
being is beyond the scrutiny of law unless
it affects the sovereign order through an act
of commission or omission. In the case at
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hand we are convinced that the use of
artificial device cannot be construed
beyond a harmless mental activity.

10. That being so, the reasoning
recorded by the Tribunal for setting aside the
impugned order of dismissal from service is a
possible view and the rationality thereof,
merely on the strength of a doubt, does not
support the State to assail the judgement
impugned before the Court on the ground that
the same suffers from an illegality calling for
interference.

11. Learned counsel for the State has
referred to a judgement rendered by the apex
court in the case of State Bank of India and
others vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow and
another reported in (1994) 2 SCC 537.

12. We have carefully gone through the
judgement relied on by learned counsel for
the State and we find that the judgement cited
before us related to a definite charge of
financial misappropriation which is not a case
before us. The judgement (supra) does not
lend support to the argument put forth.

13. On a close scrutiny of the material
placed on record we also gather that the
occasion to refer to the call details arose on
account of a proceeding relating to an
incident of loot having been lodged against
some police officials by wife of one of the
history-sheeters.

14. The opposite party had put forth his
explanation of entering into an amicable
settlement between police officials and the
complainant and probability of such a
conversation cannot be ruled out in the
normal course. All these explanations were
not considered by the disciplinary authority in
the right perspective and there was no
application of mind on such explanations at
all.

15. This relevant aspect of the matter
weighed in the mind of the Tribunal while
appreciating the arguments put forth and
the material placed on record. The
reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in our
considered view, does not call for any
interference. We also expect that the liberty
granted by the Tribunal be weighed in the
light of observations made above.

16. Thus, we decline to interfere with
the impugned judgement and the writ
petition is accordingly rejected.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 74
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 5114 of 2022

Smt. Satakshi Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anurag Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 15(3), 38,
39, 42 & 43 - Maternity Benefits Act, 1961
- Sections 5, 6 & 27 - Women's right to
get maternity benefits - Application for
grant of maternity leave was rejected on
the ground of restriction contained in R.
153(1) of Financial Handbook - Validity
challenged - Act of 1961 does not contain
any such restriction - Applicability of R.
153(1), how far permissible - Held, once