# State of U.P. & Ors v. Sadanand

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 695
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-28
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 821 of 2021
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-sadanand-46641
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Condonation of delay - The law of
limitation
undoubtedly
binds
everybody
including the Government.

In a matter of condonation of delay when there was
no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of
bona fide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice...The claim on account of
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic
methodology of making several notes cannot be
accepted in view of the modern technologies being
used and available. The Government departments are
under a special obligation to ensure that they perform
their
duties
with
diligence
and
commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and
should not be used as an anticipated benefit for
Government
departments.
The
law
shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few. (Para 6)

B. Where there are such inordinate delays that
the Government or State authorities coming
before us must pay for wastage of judicial time
which has its own value. Such costs can be
recovered from the officers responsible. (Para 7)

For non application of mind and causing unnecessary
wastage of time of the Government machinery as well
as this Court, the authority concerned is burdened
with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Out of the said amount,
50 per cent, i.e., 50,000/- shall be paid to the
respondent by way of demand draft within one
month. The rest of the amount shall be deposited by
the officer concerned with the U.P. State Legal
Services Authority. The amount imposed shall be
recovered from the guilty officer(s)/official(s), who
have shown non application of mind in filing the
present appeal with such an inordinate delay of 15
years. (Para 8)

Appeal
alongwith
delay
condonation
application dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sadanand
695
protect what is secured to the minorities under
Art.30(1) with the social necessity to protect the
members of the staff against arbitrariness and
victimisation."

13.

In
view
of
the
authoritative
pronouncement by the Supreme Court that
Minority Institution in the name of discipline
and fundamental right of administration and
management cannot be given right to hire and
fire of its teachers and that conferring of
regulatory
power
with
the
educational
authorities for ensuring guarantee of freedom
from arbitrariness to teachers would not amount
to violating the right of minority institution to
manage its institution. The argument that
exercise of power by the Inspector violates the
constitutional guarantee cannot be accepted. So
far as judgment of this Court in Clancy
Intermediate College (Supra) is concerned the
judgment of the Supreme Court in All Saints
High School (Supra) was not considered and the
observations made in the context of dismissal
were made applicable in a case of suspension
also. In view of what has been observed by the
Supreme Court in the case of All Saints High
School (Supra), Frank Anthony Public School
(Supra) and Y. Theclamma (Supra) it is difficult
to accept petitioner's argument that the order of
Inspector violates right of minority institution to
manage its affairs.

14. During the course of hearing it is
otherwise brought to the notice of the Court that
some of the issues relating to validity of the
appointment offered to private respondent, as
also the grant of approval by the competent
authority
were
not
placed
before
the
management which led to various action having
been initiated against the private respondent.
This contention however is disputed on behalf of
the private respondent on the ground that same
Manager had challenge the approval order of the
private respondent and, therefore, his argument
now that theses records were not available
cannot be accepted. These aspects, however,
need not engage this Court any further in view
of the fact that issue relating to legality of
suspension has to be examined by the inspector,
afresh. In such circumstances order passed by
the Inspector dated 16.03.2021 cannot be
sustained and is quashed. The Inspector shall
revisit the matter in light of relevant provisions
and in accordance with law within a period of
two months from the date of presentation of a
copy of this order. Both the parties shall appear
before the Inspector on 05.10.2021 along with
their records and the Inspector shall be at liberty
to fix early date for hearing in the matter. It is
clarified that till a fresh decision is taken in
accordance with law the private respondent shall
be allowed to continue and shall also be entitled
to payment of salary.
----------
(2021)11ILR A695
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 821 of 2021

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sadanand ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anand Kumar Ray, Addl. C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Anil Babu

A. Civil Law - Condonation of delay - The law of
limitation
undoubtedly
binds
everybody
including the Government.

In a matter of condonation of delay when there was
no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of
bona fide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice...The claim on account of
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic
methodology of making several notes cannot be
accepted in view of the modern technologies being
used and available. The Government departments are
under a special obligation to ensure that they perform
their
duties
with
diligence
and
commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and
should not be used as an anticipated benefit for
Government
departments.
The
law
shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few. (Para 6)

B. Where there are such inordinate delays that
the Government or State authorities coming
before us must pay for wastage of judicial time
which has its own value. Such costs can be
recovered from the officers responsible. (Para 7)

For non application of mind and causing unnecessary
wastage of time of the Government machinery as well
as this Court, the authority concerned is burdened
with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Out of the said amount,
50 per cent, i.e., 50,000/- shall be paid to the
respondent by way of demand draft within one
month. The rest of the amount shall be deposited by
the officer concerned with the U.P. State Legal
Services Authority. The amount imposed shall be
recovered from the guilty officer(s)/official(s), who
have shown non application of mind in filing the
present appeal with such an inordinate delay of 15
years. (Para 8)

Appeal
alongwith
delay
condonation
application dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. St. of M.P. Vs Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 (Para 6)

Present appeal assails order dated 04.08.2006,
passed by learned Single Judge.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

1. Present intra-Court appeal has been filed
against the order dated August 4, 2006 passed by
learned Single Judge. The appeal is delayed by
15 years 26 days. Though an application seeking
condonation of delay has been filed, but the
reasons assigned therein explaining the delay
cannot possibly be accepted from the State for
filing the appeal after more than a period of 15
years.

2. Hence, we do not find it appropriate to
record the grounds stated in the application.

3. Another relevant fact is that the order
dated May 1, 2018 has been referred to by the
learned counsel for the respondents passed in
Writ-A No. 68253 of 2020 wherein an identical
controversy was involved and an order passed
by the authority concerned therein declining
benefit to the petitioner with reference to the
same Government Order dated June 12, 1998
was set aside. The aforesaid order was upheld by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated
September 30, 2019 passed in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No. 30203 of 2019.

4. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by
learned counsel for the appellants.

5. From the narration of facts, it is evident
that there is no application of mind by any of the
authority concerned before taking decision to
file the appeal in a case after more than 15 years,
resulting in unnecessary wastage of time of
different officers of the Government and also of
this Court.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC
654, deprecating the practice of Government and
its authorities of filing the appeals/petitions
without caring for the period of limitation
prescribed therefor, observed as under:

"2. We are constrained to pen down a
detailed order as it appears that all our
counseling to Government and Government
authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the
Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the
Governments to walk in when they choose
ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We
11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sadanand
697
have raised the issue that if the Government
machinery is so inefficient and incapable of
filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may
lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the
time period for filing limitation for Government
authorities because of their gross incompetence.
That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the
appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the
Statues prescribed.

3. No doubt, some leeway is given for
the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is
that the authorities keep on relying on judicial
pronouncements for a period of time when
technology had not advanced and a greater
leeway was given to the Government (Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst.
Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position
is more than elucidated by the judgment of this
Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General
& Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012)
3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

"12) It is not in dispute that the
person(s) concerned were well aware or
conversant with the issues involved including
the prescribed period of limitation for taking up
the matter by way of filing a special leave
petition in this Court. They cannot claim that
they have a separate period of limitation when
the Department was possessed with competent
persons familiar with court proceedings. In the
absence of plausible and acceptable explanation,
we are posing a question why the delay is to be
condoned mechanically merely because the
Government or a wing of the Government is a
party before us.

Though we are conscious of the fact
that in a matter of condonation of delay when
there was no gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession
has to be adopted to advance substantial justice,
we are of the view that in the facts and
circumstances, the Department cannot take
advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim
on account of impersonal machinery and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of making
several notes cannot be accepted in view of the
modern technologies being used and available.
The law of limitation undoubtedly binds
everybody including the Government.

13) In our view, it is the right time to
inform all the government bodies, their agencies
and instrumentalities that unless they have
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the
delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no
need to accept the usual explanation that the file
was kept pending for several months/years due
to considerable degree of procedural red- tape in
the process. The government departments are
under a special obligation to ensure that they
perform
their
duties with
diligence
and
commitment. Condonation of delay is an
exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for government departments.
The law shelters everyone under the same light
and should not be swirled for the benefit of a
few." (emphasis added)

7. The Court, in para-7, further observed:

"7. We are thus, constrained to send a
signal and we propose to do in all matters today,
where there are such inordinate delays that the
Government or State authorities coming before
us must pay for wastage of judicial time which
has its own value. Such costs can be recovered
from the officers responsible."

(emphasis added)

8. In view of above, for non application of
mind and causing unnecessary wastage of time
of the Government machinery as well as this
Court, the authority concerned is burdened with
cost of ₹ 1,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, 50
per cent, i.e., 50,000/- shall be paid to the
respondent by way of demand draft within one
month. The rest of the amount shall be deposited
by the officer concerned with the U.P. State
Legal Services Authority. The amount imposed
shall
be
recovered
from
the
guilty
officer(s)/official(s), who have shown non
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application of mind in filing the present appeal
with such an inordinate delay of 15 years.

9. Compliance report about recovery of the
cost shall be filed before the Registrar General
of this Court within a period of six months. In
case of failure, the matter shall be listed before
this Court.

10. The appeal, along with delay
condonation application, are dismissed in the
manner hereinabove.
----------
(2021)11ILR A698
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ A No. 54836 of 2017

Shiv Nath Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Ashok Khare, Sri
Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha, Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gyan Prakash Shrivastava

A. Service Law - Dismissal - Kashi Gomti
Sanyukt
Gramin
Bank
(Officers
and
Employees)
Service
Regulations,
2010
-
Regulations 18, 20, 27 & 42 - A specific
transaction may give rise to different nature of
misconduct, for different officials, depending upon
their duties and nature of responsibility. Even
imposition of separate penalty, arising out of
similar charge can also be justified depending
upon nature of duties and responsibilities to
be performed. If the nature of charges were
not exactly identical or substantially similar
then no fault can be found with imposition of
separate penalty. (Para 13)
Kashi Gomti Sanyukt Gramin Bank (Officers
and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010:
Regulations 42 - In view of the fact that charges of
misconduct attributed to petitioner are distinct and
much more serious, holding of a separate enquiry
against him would not be bad. Even otherwise,
Service Regulations of 2010 merely enables holding of
common enquiry on the basis of an order passed by
the Chairman and is neither mandatory nor can be
claimed as a matter of right. (Para 18)

As per Regulation 42, holding of common enquiry is
left to the discretion of the Chairman, if he is of the
opinion that having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case where competent authority
in respect of both the officer and employee are not
the same may also direct the competent authority in
respect of the officer to conduct enquiry against him
involved in the matter. The provision doesn't
suggest that it is mandatory or obligatory for
the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer
to necessarily conduct a common enquiry just
because transactions constituting substance of
charge is one of the same. It is always open for
the employer to determine whether a common
enquiry ought to be conducted in the matter or
not. (Para 19)

The
plea
of
prejudice
will
have
to
be
necessarily established by the employee if he
has to successfully contend that non holding of
common enquiry has affected outcome of
disciplinary proceedings. No such prejudice is
shown to have occurred in the facts of the present
case. Substance of charge otherwise was distinct.
(Para 19)

B. No violation of Principles of Natural Justice -
In the present case the disciplinary authority appears
to have taken note of the findings returned by the
Enquiry Officer with an intent to form his prima facie
satisfaction for issuing show cause notice while
specifying the proposed punishment. The object of
notice apparently was to acquaint the delinquent
employee with the findings of the Enquiry Officer so
that he may submit his explanation considering the
fact that the charges were serious against bank
employee. The course adopted in that regard cannot
be said to be violative of principles of natural justice.
It is held that the show cause notice is not
vitiated for the reasons urged by the petitioner.
(Para 25)