# Surendra Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 749
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-05-14
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 36900 of 2000
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-nath-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43170
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(Punishment and Appeal) Rule 1991-Rule4-Punishment withholding integrity-beyond
competence awarding minor or major
punishment- order being contrary to law is
nullity-quashed.
Held: Para-12
Imposing the punishment for a proved
delinquency is regulated and controlled
by the statutory rules. Therefore, while
performing the quasi-judicial functions,
the authority is not permitted to ignore
the
statutory
rules
under
which
punishment is to be imposed. The
750
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disciplinary authority is bound to give
strict adherence to the said rules.
Case Law discussed:
Writ A No. 32261 of 2011; J.T. 2012 (4) SC
105; W.P. No. 32261 of 2011.

## Text

2 All] Surendra Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
749
contemplates that the service will not count
for pension unless the employee holds a
substantive
post
on
a
permanent
establishment. However, in respect of
temporary or officiating service, it provides
that the continuous temporary or officiating
service followed without interruption by
confirmation in the same or another post
shall also count as qualifying service.
22. From a simple reading of the
aforesaid provisions, it instantly brings
out that a teacher of the primary section is
entitled for pension in terms of the Rules,
1964 and the Government Order dated
28th January, 2004 is merely clarificatory
in nature. Moreover, the cut-off date
mentioned in the said Government order
has already been struck down by this
Court in Mangali Prasad Verma (supra).
23.
After careful consideration of the
matter, I am of the considered opinion that
the petitioner is entitled for pension and the
view taken by the third respondent is not
sustainable. Hence, the impugned order
dated 12th June, 2008 passed by the third
respondent is set aside. As no factual dispute
is involved in the matter and the impugned
order was based on misconstruction of the
Government Order dated 28th January, 2004,
wherein the cut off date has been fixed, no
useful purpose would be served to send the
matter back to the authority concerned for
consideration afresh as this Court has already
declared the cut off date as arbitrary in the
case of Mangali Prasad Verma (supra).
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to
extend the benefit of the Government Order
dated 28th January, 2004 and the Rules,
1964 to the petitioner for payment of pension
with effect from 30th June, 2001 within a
period of four months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this
order. The petitioner is entitled for the arrears
of pension with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum with effect from 30th June, 2001 till
the date of actual payment. The respondents
are further directed to permit the petitioner to
deposit the Management's contribution, if not
already made, within a period of two months
and after deposit of the contribution, she will
be entitled for the pension, as directed above.
24. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
25. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 36900 of 2000
Surendra Nath Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rule 1991-Rule4-Punishment withholding integrity-beyond
competence awarding minor or major
punishment- order being contrary to law is
nullity-quashed.
Held: Para-12
Imposing the punishment for a proved
delinquency is regulated and controlled
by the statutory rules. Therefore, while
performing the quasi-judicial functions,
the authority is not permitted to ignore
the
statutory
rules
under
which
punishment is to be imposed. The
750
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disciplinary authority is bound to give
strict adherence to the said rules.
Case Law discussed:
Writ A No. 32261 of 2011; J.T. 2012 (4) SC
105; W.P. No. 32261 of 2011.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)
1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
standing counsel for the respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 3rd April,
2000 passed by the Respondent No.2
whereby the punishment awarded to the
petitioner by the subordinate authorities
withholding his integrity has been upheld.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that there is no provision in Rule
4 of the U.P. Police Officers of the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment
and
Appeal)
Rules
1991
for
awarding
punishment by withholding integrity and,
as such, the order of punishment as
upheld by the impugned order dated 3rd
April, 2000 is wholly without authority of
law. In support of his submissions he
relies upon the judgment of this Court in
Writ A No. 32261 of 2011, Surendra
Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others
dated 23rd September, 2013.
4.
Learned standing counsel submits
that
the
petitioner
was
habitual
of
committing mistakes and, therefore, after due
inquriy and after affording him opportunity,
he was lawfully punished by withholding his
integrity.
5.
I have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties.
6. Briefly stated the facts of the present
case are that the petitioner was Assistant Sub
Inspector (Ministerial)/ Assistant Accountant
in 4th Batalian, P.A.C., Allahabad. A show
cause notice dated 23.7.1999 was issued to
him for punishing him by withholding his
integrity for the year 1998 on the ground that
he has not recorded factual aspects in his
noting on the provident fund advance
application of Constable Vijay Shankar
pandey. The petitioner submitted reply dated
12.8.1999 through Senior Superintendent of
Police, Allahabad. His explanation was not
accepted and an order dated 10th September,
1999 was passed by the Commandant, 4th
Battalion, P.A.C., Allahabad withholding his
integrity.
7. Aggrieved with this order, the
petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 22
(i) of the U.P. Police Officer of the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred
to as the Rules) before the D.I.G., P.A.C.
Kanpur, U.P. Kanpur through proper
channel which was dismissed by order
dated 5th February, 2000. Against this
order the petitioner filed a revision before
the next higher authority under Rule 23 of
the Rules which was dismissed by the
impugned order dated 3rd April, 2000.
Aggrieved with this order the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition.
8. In paragraph No.4 of the
impugned order it is stated that for the
irregularities committed by the petitioner,
a show cause notice was issued to him by
the competent authority and charges
levelled against him were found proved.
9. It is undisputed that in the matter
of disciplinary proceedings the petitioner
is governed by the provisions of the
aforesaid Rules, 1991. Rule 4 of the Rules
2 All] Surendra Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
751
1991 provides for major penalties as well as
minor penalties which may be imposed upon
a police officer for good and sufficient
reasons. Rule 4 of the Rules 1991 does not
provide for penalty by way of withholding
integrity. Under the circumstances, the
impugned order dated 3rd April, 2000
awarding
punishment
of
withholding
integrity, is wholly without authority of law
and, therefore, cannot be sustained.
10. In the case of Vijay Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others J.T. 2012 (4) SC
105 in para 11 Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as under:
"11. The issue involved herein is
required to be examined from another angle
also. Holding departmental proceedings and
recording a finding of guilt against any
delinquent and imposing the punishment for
the same is a quasi-judicial function and not
administrative one. (Vide: Bachhittar Singh v.
State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395;
Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC
364; Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. &
Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 539; and Chairmancum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. &
Ors. v. Ananta Saha & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC
142).
Imposing the punishment for a proved
delinquency is regulated and controlled by the
statutory rules. Therefore, while performing
the quasi-judicial functions, the authority is
not permitted to ignore the statutory rules
under which punishment is to be imposed. The
disciplinary authority is bound to give strict
adherence to the said rules.
Thus, the order of punishment being
outside the purview of the statutory rules
is a nullity and cannot be enforced
against the appellant."
11. In Writ Petition No. 32261 of
2011 Surender Kumar Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others dated 23rd September,
2013 held in paragraph No.8 as under:
"8. Similar issue, i.e., with regard to
imposition of punishment of withholding of
integrity in respect of police officers of
subordinate rank, has been considered earlier
also by this Court and such orders of
punishment have been set aside holding that
punishment, not prescribed in Rules, cannot
be imposed. These judgements are in Writ
Petition No. 49071 of 2012, Abdul Kadir
Khan and another Vs. State of U.P. and
others, decided on 22.03.2012 (by Hon'ble
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.); Writ Petition
No. 25665 of 2012, Narendra Singh Yadav
Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on
23.05.2012 (by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.); Writ Petition No. 58153 of 2006,
Surendra Nath Rai Vs. State of U.P. and
others, decided on 06.09.2012 (by Hon'ble
Devendra Pratap Singh, J.); Writ Petition No.
58154 of 2006, Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and others, decided on 21.12.2012 (by
Hon'ble Sunil Hali, J.); Writ Petition No. 7190
(SS) of 2011, Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
and others, decided on 17.01.2013 (by
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.); Writ Petition
No. 52328 of 2011, Abdul Qadir Khan Vs.
State of U.P. and others, decided on
23.01.2013 (by Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.); Writ
Petition No. 1386 of 2008, Phool Chandra
Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and
others, decided on 04.03.2013 (by Hon'ble
Tarun Agarwala, J.); Writ Petition No. 34465
of 2012, Akhilesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others, decided on 26.07.2013 (by Myself);
and, Raj Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2013(2) ADJ 80 (by Myself). Besides
above, a Division Bench of this Court has also
expressed same view in Writ Petition No.
1315 (SB) of 2003, Satya Deo Sharma Vs.
State of U.P. and others, decided on
02.04.2010 (by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. and
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.)."
752
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. Thus imposition of punishment of
withholding of integrity in respect of a police
officer of subordinate rank, is without
authority of law since such punishment is not
provided in Rule 4 of the Rules 1991. Holding
departmental proceedings and recording a
finding of guilt against any delinquent and
imposing the punishment for the same is a
quasi-judicial function and not administrative
one. Imposing the punishment for a proved
delinquency is regulated and controlled by the
statutory rules. Therefore, while performing
the quasi-judicial functions, the authority is
not permitted to ignore the statutory rules
under which punishment is to be imposed.
The disciplinary authority is bound to give
strict adherence to the said rules.
13. Thus the punishment of
withholding integrity awarded to the
petitioner and upheld by the impugned
order dated 3rd April, 2000 being outside
the purview of Rule 4 of the Rules 1991,
is a nullity. Consequently the impugned
order is set aside.
14. In result the writ petition
succeeds and is hereby allowed. However
there shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 45926 of 2006
Badrul Hasan Alvi
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.F.A. Naqvi
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Benefit of
salary and other consequential benefitworking promotional post purely temporary
arrangement-promotion with stipulation of
reversion on appointment of regular selected
candidates or any infirmity in workingadmittedly
for
34
years
working
on
promotional post-junior and other similarly
situated persons getting benefit-held-by
long period of working petitioner-possessing
experience-rejection
of
claim
as
per
regulation 1993 on ground of not possessing
requisite qualification-not proper-petitioner
entitled for every consequential benefit as
junior engineer.
Held: Para-17
The judgements cited by learned counsel
for the petitioner are fully applicable to the
petitioner's
case.
If
a
worker
gains
sufficient experience after serving several
years in the department, he cannot be
refused confirmation on the ground that he
did not possess requisite qualifications. The
petitioner worked on the promoted post for
a substantial period of time without being
questioned by the respondents and at the
fag end of his retirement he cannot be
denied confirmation.
Case Law discussed:
1990 AIR (SC) 371; Civil Appeal No. 2835 of
2015; (1993) 3 SCC 237.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)
1. Heard Shri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. By this writ petition the petitioner
has prayed for following reliefs:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dt.19.05.2006 passed by
respondent
no.2
(Annexure
No.1).