# Sunil Kumar Pandey PNR No. 062018210 & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 663
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-16
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 265 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-pandey-pnr-no-062018210-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51458
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Service Law - U.P. Police Regulations -
Rule 523 - Transfer and Relieving Orders -
Petitioners challenged transfer orders dated
05.06.2023 and 27.05.2023, and relieving
orders dated 14.11.2023, 06.11.2023, and
15.12.2023, alleging non-compliance with Rule
523 requiring relieving within 10 days of transfer
- Held, delayed relieving orders violate Rule
523, reflecting arbitrariness and non-uniform
policy application - Param Singh Vs St. of U.P.
followed, emphasizing adherence to transfer
policy unless justified by recorded reasons -
Judicial restraint in interfering with policy
decisions reiterated, but non-compliance with
regulations warrants intervention - Director
General of Police directed to investigate noncompliance with Rule 523, report district-wise
violations within 60 days, and propose punitive
actions
-
Relieving
orders
stayed
until
30.04.2024, petitioners to join new postings
within a week thereafter - Uniform transfer
policy
implementation
emphasized
for
transparency and accountability. (Para 12-28)

Writ petitions disposed of.

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

2 All. Sunil Kumar Pandey PNR No. 062018210 & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
competent authority. Learned Single Judge
could not have drawn conclusion from the
allegations contained in the complaint even
if the petitioner had not elaborately
explained the allegations in the writ.
Further, the findings returned by the
learned Single Judge holding appellantpetitioner to be minor at the time of
appointment or having criminal antecedents
could not be returned on the basis of a
complaint made by some private person.
Neither any counter affidavit was invited in
the writ nor the averments made in the
complaint were verified. Consequently and
for the reasons narrated above, the
judgment and order passed by learned
Single Judge on 17.08.2023 cannot be
approved. The order of learned Single
Judge dated 17.08.2023 is set aside.

5. The writ petition and the Special
Appeal both are disposed of with a
direction upon the respondent no.3 to
accord consideration to petitioner's claim
with regard to denial of engagement as
Seasonal Collection Peon overlooking his
seniority, by passing a reasoned order
within a period of two months.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 663
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ - A No. 265 of 2024
And
Writ - A No. 268 of 2024

Sunil Kumar Pandey PNR No. 062018210
& Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
M.P. Raju

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law - U.P. Police Regulations -
Rule 523 - Transfer and Relieving Orders -
Petitioners challenged transfer orders dated
05.06.2023 and 27.05.2023, and relieving
orders dated 14.11.2023, 06.11.2023, and
15.12.2023, alleging non-compliance with Rule
523 requiring relieving within 10 days of transfer
- Held, delayed relieving orders violate Rule
523, reflecting arbitrariness and non-uniform
policy application - Param Singh Vs St. of U.P.
followed, emphasizing adherence to transfer
policy unless justified by recorded reasons -
Judicial restraint in interfering with policy
decisions reiterated, but non-compliance with
regulations warrants intervention - Director
General of Police directed to investigate noncompliance with Rule 523, report district-wise
violations within 60 days, and propose punitive
actions
-
Relieving
orders
stayed
until
30.04.2024, petitioners to join new postings
within a week thereafter - Uniform transfer
policy
implementation
emphasized
for
transparency and accountability. (Para 12-28)

Writ petitions disposed of.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Sardaj Ali PNR No. 012642278 Vs St. of U.P.;
(not fully cited in judgment)

2. Head Constable Harendra Kumar Ram Vs St.
of U.P.; (not fully cited in judgment)

3. Head Constable Ravindra Kumar & ors. Vs St.
of U.P.; (not fully cited in judgment)

4. Ainuddin PNR No. 912412830 Vs St. of U.P.;
(not fully cited in judgment)

5. S.I. Surendra Kumar Dwivedi & ors. Vs St. of
U.P.; (not fully cited in judgment)

6. Abhay Ram & anr.Vs St. of U.P.; (not fully
cited in judgment)
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Head Constable Shubhash Chandra Vs St. of
U.P.; (not fully cited in judgment)

8. Anil Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P.; (not fully
cited in judgment)

9. Ali Ahmad Vs St. of U.P.; (not fully cited in
judgment)

10. Vitaralli Vs Seaton; (not fully cited in
judgment)

11. A.S. Ahluwalia Vs St. of Pun.; (not fully cited
in judgment)

12. Sukhdev Vs Bhagat Ram; (not fully cited in
judgment)

13. Param Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P.; (not fully
cited in judgment)

14. Breen Vs Amalgamated Engineering Union;
(not fully cited in judgment)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. The facts of both the petitions are
similar, and the prayers made thereof are
also similar; therefore, both the petitions
are being decided by this common
judgment.

2. I have heard Shri M.P. Raju and
Shri Anupam Shukla, learned counsel for
the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents in respective
petitions, and perused the records.

3. The Writ-A No.265 of 2024 has
been filed with a prayer to quash the
impugned relieving order dated 14.11.2023
passed by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Lucknow, as well as the transfer
order dated 5.6.2023 passed by Deputy
Inspector General of Police (Karmik),
Lucknow. A further prayer has been made
to direct the respondents to allow the
petitioners to work on the present place of
posting and pay their salary regularly every
month.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
in the aforesaid writ petition submits that
the impugned order dated 14.11.2023
passed in pursuance of the transfer order
dated 5.6.2023 is illegal and arbitrary. The
relieving order dated 14.11.2023 has been
passed in defiance of Rule 523 of the U.P.
Police Regulations. The petitioners have
also raised certain personal reasons for not
complying with the impugned order dated
14.11.2023. He further submits that while
issuing the transfer orders and thereafter
relieving orders, no uniform policy has
been adopted by the Department, and that
is why the favoritism and non-application
of mind are reflected in the impugned
order. Learned counsel further states that
Chapter XXXIV, Rule 523 of the U.P.
Police Regulations mandates the issuance
of a relieving order within 10 days after the
passing of the transfer order.

5. Another Writ-A No.268 of 2024
has been filed with the prayer to quash the
impugned transfer order dated 27.5.2023 as
well as relieving orders dated 6.11.2023
and 15.12.2023. A further prayer has been
made to direct the respondents to permit the
petitioners to discharge their duties at the
present place of posting till academic
session 2023-24 (April 2024).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the impugned order
dated 14.11.2023 passed in pursuance of
the transfer order dated 5.6.2022 is illegal
and arbitrary. The relieving order dated
14.11.2023 has been passed in defiance of
Chapter XXXIV, Rule 523 of the U.P.
Police Regulations. He further submits that
while issuing the transfer orders, and
therefore relieving orders, no uniform
2 All. Sunil Kumar Pandey PNR No. 062018210 & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665
policy has been adopted by the Department,
and that is why the favoritism and nonapplication of mind are reflected in the
impugned order. Learned counsel further
states that Rule 523 of the U.P. Police
Regulations mandates issuing a relieving
order within 10 days after passing the
transfer order.

7. In both the writ petitions, the
learned counsel for the parties has drawn
the attention of this Court to the Rule 523
of the Chapter XXXIV of the U.P. Police
Regulations. Rule 523 contained in Chapter
XXXIV of the U.P. Police Regulations is
outlined herein under:

"On receipt of an order of
transfer of a subordinate officer to another
district the Superintendent will arrange to
relieve him to his duties within.

Officers transferred are entitled
to joining time, but the Superintendent may
not grant leave to an officer under order of
transfer.

An inspector relieved on transfer
from another district is entitled to sign a
certificate of taking over charge from the
date of arrival in the new district. If the
officers to be relieved cannot be present at
headquarters, the charge certificate should
be signed for him by the Superintendent of
Police, or, in his absence, by an Assistant
Superintendent
of
Police
or
Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The effect of this
will be that an officiating officer will be
considered to have been reverted, and
permanent incumbent's joining time or
leave or discharge, will be counted from
the date on which the relieving officer takes
over charge"

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has also relied upon the office order dated
7.6.2023 being no.9/2023/262/General/47Ka-4-2023-(1/3/96)
issued
by
Chief
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh
and letter dated January 14, 2022 issued by
the Director General of Police, Uttar
Pradesh in which the parameters to regulate
the transfer of the police officers/Head
Constables/Constables
have
been
discussed.

9. To fortify their argument, both the
learned counsels for the petitioners have
relied upon the series of orders passed by
the co-ordinate Benches of this Court,
whereby the transfer order has been either
struck down by this Court on the similar
ground of non-compliance of Rule 523 or
because of the reasons that the transfer
orders have been issued in the mid
academic
session
of
the
petitioners'
children. The details and gist of the orders
annexed with the instant petitions are
outlines hereinafter for illustrative purpose;
(i) Sardaj Ali PNR No.012642278 v. State
of U.P. through Principal Secretary,
Department of Home and others1; (ii)
Head Constable Harendra Kumar Ram v.
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary
Home and another2; (iii) Head Constable
Ravindra Kumar and 33 others v. State of
U.P.
through
Principal
Secretary
Department
Home
and
others3;
(iv)
Ainuddin PNR No. 912412830 v. State of
U.P.
through
Principal
Secretary
Department Home and others4; (v) S.I.
Surendra Kumar Dwivedi and 2 others v.
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary
Department Home, Lucknow5; (vi) Abhay
Ram and another v. State of U.P. through
Principal Secretary Department Home,
Lucknow6; (vii) Head Constable Shubhash
Chandra v. State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary Department Home, Lucknow and
others7; (viii) Anil Kumar and others v.
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary
Department Home, Lucknow and others8;
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and (ix) Ali Ahmad v. State of U.P. through
Principal Secretary Department Home,
Lucknow and others9.

10. The above-stated writ petitions
have been disposed of/decided mainly on
the ground either for non-compliance with
the transfer policy issued from time to time
by the government or floating of various
government orders issued in this regard.
For
example,
in
Sardaj
Ali
PNR
No.012642278 v. State of U.P. through
Principal Secretary, Department of Home
and others1, the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court stayed the transfer order apparently
for non-compliance of the prior approval of
the Chief Minister in pursuance of the
government order dated 16.8.2022; in Head
Constable Harendra Kumar Ram v. State of
U.P. through Principal Secretary Home
and another2, the transfer order has been
kept in abeyance till academic session of
the petitioner's son is over; in Head
Constable Ravindra Kumar and 33 others
v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary
Department Home and others3, the liberty
was granted to 34 petitioners to file a fresh
representation to the Director General
Police Establishment for reconsideration of
the transfer which was done in the mid
academic session of the children even
though the petitioner's had completed their
postings ranging from 10-15 years at a
particular station. Likewise, the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court disposed of the case
S.I. Surendra Kumar Dwivedi and 2 others
v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary
Department Home, Lucknow5 in the
following terms:

"Heard
learned
counsel
for
parties.

All the writ petitions have been
clubbed together as the issue involved in
these petitions is the same as to whether the
authority was justified in relieving the
petitioners after two years of the transfer
order having been passed. The transfer
order in all cases were passed in the year
2014, in spite of it, on account of
administrative exigencies, the need for
adequate number of personnel at Lucknow,
which is the State capital, they could not be
relieved. Normally considering the lapse of
time the appropriate course for the
respondents was to re-consider the matter
and pass a fresh order of transfer as has
been held by this Court in the judgment
dated 6.7.2016 passed in writ petition
no.15148 (SS) of 2016 which has been
followed by a co-ordinate bench in writ
petition no.15961 (SS) of 2016, therefore
only for this reason while granting liberty
to the respondents to have a fresh look at
the matter and pass a fresh order
expeditiously say within a period of 2
weeks, the impugned orders are hereby
quashed.

All the writ petitions stand
disposed of in the aforesaid terms."

11. Similarly, the case of Anil Kumar
and others v. State of U.P. through
Principal Secretary Department Home,
Lucknow and others8 was disposed of with
the underlined observations:

"Be that as it may, since there is
statutory prescription for relieving of a
police officer within a period of ten days
and this Court has condemned the delayed
relieving of the police officers in various
orders being passed by this Court in
identical matter, therefore, the instant writ
petition is disposed of finally quashing the
impugned order dated 04.03.2020, so far as
it relates to the petitioners, however, with
liberty to the opposite parties to pass a
fresh order of transfer, if exigency of
service so requires, strictly in accordance
2 All. Sunil Kumar Pandey PNR No. 062018210 & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
with
law
and
the
transfer
policy,
particularly considering the aspect of mid
session."

12. On perusal of the order passed by
this court, it transpires that such non - noncompliance is frequent, and it seems the
department has no concern to the orders
passed by this Court. There seems to be no
effect on the working of the department so
far as the transfer of the police officers is
concerned, and such non-compliance is
frequent. The reasons for not giving
adherence to the orders passed by this
Court may be best known to the officers,
but its apparently reflected that this is
adversely affecting the working of the
police force and impacting the State's
interest.

13. The executive authority is bound
by the norms, standards, and procedures
laid down by it to regulate the police of the
State. In this regard, Mr. Justice Frank
Furter
in
Vitaralli
v.
Seaton10,
enunciated the Rule as under:

"An executive agency must be
rigorously held to the standards by which it
professes its action to be judged.....
Accordingly, if dismissal from employment
is based on a defined procedure, even
though generous beyond the requirements
that bind such agency, that procedure must
be scrupulously observed... This judicially
evolved rule of administrative law is now
firmly established and, if I may add, rightly
so. He that takes the procedural sword
shall perish with the sword."

14. The Supreme Court accepted the
Rule as valid and applied in India in A.S.
Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab11 and in the
subsequent decision given in Sukhdev v.
Bhagat Ram12. It may be noted that this
Rule though supportable also as an
emanation from Article 14, does not merely
rest on that Article. It is an independent
existence apart from Article 14. It is a rule
of administrative law that has been
judicially evolved as a check against the
exercise
of
arbitrary
power
by
the
executive
authority.
It
is
indeed
unthinkable that in a democracy governed
by the rule of law, the executive
government or any of its officers possesses
arbitrary power over the interest of the
individual. Every action of the executive
government must be informed with reason
and should be free from arbitrariness. That
is the very essence of the rule of law and its
bare minimum requirement13.

15. This Court in Param Singh and
others v. State of U.P. and others14 has
discussed the legal framework with regard
to the transfer of the government servant.
Transfer is a condition of service, and a
government servant has no vested right to
remain posted at the place of his/her
choice. The court should not interfere with
the transfer order, which is made in the
public interest and for administrative
reasons, unless an order of transfer is
shown to be the outcome of a malafide
exercise or stated to be in violation of
statutory provisions prohibiting any such
transfer. For clarity, para 18, 19, 26, 28 &
31 of the judgement are extracted herein
under:

"18. Guided by the settled
principles of law, referred above, we find
that the appellants are members of a
disciplined force, therefore, they are not
expected to disobey the order of their
transfer and if they have some personal
problem or the transfer has been passed
against the transfer policy, it is open to
them to move a representation to the
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appropriate authority for redressal of their
grievance. In case it is found that they have
some personal problem, the authorities
ought to consider their grievance and pass
appropriate order and shall make an
endeavour to address the same. In the
cases
of
genuine
problems
the
representations
of
the
Government
employees
should
not
be
rejected
mechanically.

19. It is true that if a transfer
order
is
passed
in
violation
of
administrative order/transfer policy, it does
not confer a vested right to the Government
employee to challenge it but at the same
time, as observed by the Supreme Court in
the
abovementioned
cases,
while
transferring the Government employee the
authority concerned should keep in mind
the transfer policy and the executive
orders.
*****

26.
A
policy/policy
decision/policy
matter
is
made
by
Government after considering all the points
from different angles, while framing the
policy the Government also takes into
consideration the administrative efficiency
and other incidental matters. Once the
Government takes a policy decision, it is
obligatory on its officials to execute its
policy in the right earnest and to achieve
the objects of the policy. The rule of the law
casts
a
duty
on
the
administrative
functionaries to act within the framework
of the law, be it law made by the
legislature,
subordinate
legislation
or
executive orders issued under Article 73
and 162 of the Constitution. They are also
obliged to follow the circulars/memos and
instructions issued by the Government. In
the matter of policy decision of the
Government, it is trite that Courts, in
exercise of their jurisdiction, will not
transgress into the field of policy decision.
Court's interference is called for only on
limited grounds, when it suffers from
unreasonableness, arbitrariness or it is
beyond legislative power or is beyond
constitutional limits or public policy or
against statutory provision. If the Courts
have
treated
the
policy/policy
decision/policy matter on such a high
pedestal
then
Government's
own
employees/officials cannot be allowed to
breach and ignore its order with impunity.
*****

28. In our view, the Government
is bound by its policy. However, if for some
reasons due to administrative exigency or
public interest it becomes necessary to
deviate from it then proper course is to
record brief reasons at best on the file to
justify the deviation from the policy.
Earlier, the traditional view in England
was that executive is not answerable where
its action was attributed to administrative
functions. Lord Denning MR. in Breen v.
Amalgamated Engineering Union (now
Amalgamated Engineering and Foundry
Workers Union)15, observed thus:

"The giving of reasons is one of
the fundamentals of good administration."
*****

31.
In
the
light
of
above
discussion, it is demonstrably clear that
even if a transfer order is found to be in
violation of executive instructions or
orders, Courts ordinarily should not
interfere instead the affected party may
approach
higher
authorities
in
the
department. But if a transfer order is
passed in administrative exigency or public
interest and is in violation of transfer
policy of the Government, then the
competent authority must record brief
reasons in the file for deviation from
transfer policy. It is not necessary to
mention said reason in transfer order. The
recording of reason shall check arbitrary
2 All. Sunil Kumar Pandey PNR No. 062018210 & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669
exercise of power and will help the judicial
process and by superior administrative
heads if the order is challenged by affected
person."

16. Government policy decisions are
often
formulated
after
extensive
deliberation, taking into account various
considerations such as public interest,
administrative
efficiency,
and
legal
framework. Once a policy is formulated, it
becomes
imperative
for
government
officials to adhere to and implement it
diligently.

17.

However,
administrative
discretion is not absolute and must be
exercised within the confines of legal
principles and constitutional constraints.
The rule of law imposes limitations on the
exercise
of
administrative
discretion,
ensuring that government actions are
consistent
with
statutory
provisions,
constitutional norms, and principles of
fairness and reasonableness. Thus, while
government officials enjoy a degree of
autonomy in decision-making, they are
bound by legal norms and are accountable
for their actions.

18. There is another aspect of this
case: this Court is flooded with similar
nature of petitions every day, wherein
transfer orders are challenged on the
ground of contravention of Rule 523 of the
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations by the
officers, and this is affecting the working of
the police and undermining the morale of
the police force.

19. In a State like Uttar Pradesh,
which has the largest single police force in
the country, covers an approximate area of
243.286 square kilometres and a population
of over 20 crores approximately (as per
Sensex 2011). The State has a force of
approximately 3.10 lakh personnel spread
over 75 districts and 33 armed battalions.
The transfer and posting of police officers
within the Government Department is
crucially an administrative decision that
significantly impacts law enforcement
agencies' efficiency and effectiveness.
These decisions are often subject to the
discretion of the higher authorities, keeping
in view the operational and administrative
requirements, and the absence of a uniform
and consistent approach in making such
decisions may lead to various legal,
administrative, and operational challenges.

20. The uniformity and consistency in
the transfer and posting of police officers
are essentially for promoting transparency,
fairness, and accountability within the
police
force.
When
decisions
are
standardized, it helps prevent favoritism,
nepotism and other arbitrary considerations
that could compromise the integrity of
force. Additionally, a uniform approach
fosters a sense of trust and confidence
among the rank and file, attributing to a
more coercive and disciplined police force.

21. The inconsistency in the transfer
and posting of police officers can have a
detrimental effect on the administrative and
operational capabilities of the police.
Arbitrary transfers and non-compliance
with rules, regulations and policies formed
by the Government by the Officer-incharge and responsible for making such
transfers
hinder
effective
community
policing and diminish morale among
officers.

22. This Court noticed that the
provisions of U.P. Police Regulations have
been regularly either ignored or violated to
protect the interest of desired or chosen
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidates. It is also noticed that over a
period of time, in many cases, it has made a
practice that the provisions of U.P. Police
Regulations are not followed in many
aspects; one of the potential reasons could
be either the officers are not aware of the
provisions of Police Regulations and
government policies issued time to time or
the officers have sometimes vested interest.

23. Administrative discretion is vital
for effective governance; it must be
exercised within the bounds of legal norms
and constitutional principles. While judicial
review serves as a crucial mechanism for
upholding the rule of law and ensuring
accountability
in
government
actions.
However, courts should exercise restraint
and deference in reviewing government
policies, recognizing the expertise and
autonomy
of
the
executive
branch.
Ultimately, striking a balance between
administrative discretion and the rule of
law is essential to maintain the integrity
and legitimacy of government decisionmaking processes.

24. Courts are hesitant to interfere in
matters of policy formulation unless there
are compelling reasons to do so. Grounds
for judicial intervention typically include
instances where government actions are
arbitrary, unreasonable, ultra vires, or
contrary to public policy or its own
circulars and regulations. Courts may also
intervene if government policies infringe
upon fundamental rights or violate statutory
provisions.

25. Therefore, in view of the
foregoing discussions, the Director General
of Police, U.P., Lucknow, is directed to
examine the reasons for non-compliance
with Rule 523 of U.P. Police Regulations
and place a report before the Government
to take immediate and effective steps to
issue appropriate directions or circulars to
the police officers responsible for issuing
the transfer and relieving orders. The
Director General of Police shall indicate in
its report, the number of cases- district-
wise, wherein the compliance of Rule 523
of U.P. Police Regulation has not been
observed by the Officer-in-charge in letter
and spirit in the last one year, and shall also
propose potential punitive actions against
the erring officers. The said exercise by the
Director General of Police shall be
concluded within 60 days from the date of
the order and submit a report to the
Government, accordingly, then after that
the Government shall issue well-structured
directions/regulations to the police officers
in a time bound manner to ensure that Rule
523 of the U.P. Police Regulations is
uniformly and consistently followed.

26. The Director General of Police
shall also prepare a comprehensive list
indicating the details of transfer orders
passed by the Officer-in-charge in their
respective
jurisdiction
in
which
no
relieving order has been passed till date.
The fate of such transfer orders, if any,
shall be decided in accordance with Rule
523 of the U.P. Police Regulations, and if
need be, a fresh transfer order be passed in
accordance with the transfer policy and
government orders issued from time to time
in this regard.

27. Needless to say, if, for all
practical and administrative reasons, Rule
523 of the U.P. Police Regulation cannot be
implemented in letter and spirit, then the
same shall be examined at the State level
and needful be done accordingly. The
consistently and uniformly implementing a
transfer
policy
by
executives
would
2 All. Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rajendra
 Kumar Srivastava & Anr.
671
enhance transparency, accountability, and
responsibility within police force.

28. Reverting back to the prayer made
in (i) Writ-A No. 265 of 2024, it is directed
that the impugned relieving order dated
14.11.2023
shall
remain
stayed
till
30.4.2024, and the impact of the impugned
order
shall
be
revived
immediately
thereafter. The department shall be at
liberty to proceed further in conformity
with the transfer order dated 5.6.2023. The
petitioners are further directed to report to
the new place of posting as delineated in
the transfer order within a week from
31.4.2024; and also in (ii) Writ-A No. 268
of 2024, it is directed that the impugned
relieving
order
dated
6.11.2023
and
15.12.2023 arising out of transfer order
dated 27.5.2023 and 4.11.2023 shall also
remain stayed till 30.4.2024, and the impact
of the impugned order shall be revived
immediately thereafter. The department
shall be at liberty to proceed further in
conformity with the transfer order dated
27.5.2023 and 4.11.2023. The petitioners
are further directed to report to the new
place of posting as delineated in the
transfer orders within a week from
31.4.2024.

29. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to send a copy of this order to the
Director General of Police for necessary
compliance
and
take
note
of
the
observations deliberated herein above. A
copy of this order will also be sent to the
Chief
Secretary,
UP,
for
effective
supervision and compliance.

30. The present petitions stand
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 671
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI,
J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 332 of 2023
Connected with
Special Appeal No. 330 of 2023
And other connected cases

Dr.
Shakuntala
Mishra
National
Rehabilitation University & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Atul Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vijay Dixit, C.S.C.

Service Law - Dr. Shakuntala Mishra
National Rehabilitation University (For
Differently
Abled)
U.P.
Act,
2009
-
Sections 25 & 44 - U.P. Government
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - Termination of Services - Appellants
challenged
Single
Judge's
order
dated
08.05.2023
and
24.05.2023
quashing
termination/cancellation
of
respondents'
appointments for lack of qualifications - Held,
termination proceedings violated principles of
natural justice and statutory provisions -
University's adoption of Rules, 1999 mandated
compliance, but no charge-sheet issued, no full
enquiry report provided, and hearing by one
committee with decision by another vitiated
process - Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of
Trade Marks, Harbanslal Sahnia Vs Indian Oil
Corpn. Ltd., and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs Excise
and Taxation Officer followed, affirming writ
maintainability despite alternative remedies due
to natural justice violations - Section 44
protects selections despite procedural defects in
committee constitution - Long service (7-8