# U.O.I. & Ors v. Vijay Kumar Pandey

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 712
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-18
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 384 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Rajeev Bharti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-o-i-ors-v-vijay-kumar-pandey-54775
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

and passing the removal order merely on the
basis
of
incarceration
of
the
respondent/petitioner in a criminal case.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding
- Removal - Respondent/petitioner, while
working as Head Constable in CISF, was
incarcerated in a criminal case u/s 302
IPC - Charge of gross misconduct on
account of involvement in the criminal
case was leveled - At the time of issuance
of
the
charge-sheet
in
disciplinary
proceedings, the respondent/ petitioner
had not been convicted - Trial is still
pending - Effect - Disciplinary proceeding
was
concluded
in
removal
of
the
11 All. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Pandey
713
respondent/petitioner
-
Validity
challenged :
Held : It is unthinkable as to how, at the stage
of initiation of disciplinary proceedings or
passing of the removal order, any authority
whether it be the supervisory officer or the
disciplinary authority could have formed any
opinion based merely on the incarceration of the
respondent/ petitioner in respect of a criminal
case and his alleged involvement therein, even
if the offence was of a heinous nature, that he
was remiss or negligent in the discharge of his
duties or unfit for the same. Learned Single
Judge therefore, cannot be faulted for having
quashed the removal order, as, the very
initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in the facts
and circumstances of this case, for imposing
punishment of removal was without any factual
and legal basis - There was absolutely no basis
for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and
issuance
of
chargesheet
to
the
respondent/petitioner merely because of his
incarceration in respect of a criminal case.
[Paras 21 and 25] (E- 1)

Case Law Cited
Union of India vs. Rajiv Kumar, 2003 (6) SCC
516 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 311; Central
Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - S. 8(1);
Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 -
Rule 33 (2); CCS (Conduct ) Rules, 1964 - Rule
3 (i), (ii), (iii) and (xviii); Financial Handbook
Volume II Part II to IV - FR-53, FR-54A and FR54B.

List of Keywords
Incarceration;
Suspension;
Charge;
Gross
misconduct; Involvement in criminal case;
Chargesheet; Disciplinary proceeding; Removal;
Emolument; Integrity; Age of superannuation.

Case Arising From
Impugned
Judgement
and
order
dated
21.8.2024 of Single Judge quashing the removal
order passed against the the respondent
petitioner.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : S. B. Pandey, Senior
Advocte; Anand Dwivedi
Advs. For the Respondent : Durgesh Mishra

## Text

712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

145. There are, four situations
where in second proceedings between the
same parties doctrine res judicata as a
corollary of the principle of abuse of
process may be invoked : (i) cause of
action estoppel, where the entirety of a
decided cause of action is sought to be
relitigated; (ii) issue estoppel or, ?decided
issue estoppel,? where an issue is sought to
be relitigated which has been raised and
decided as a fundamental step in arriving at
the earlier judicial decision; (iii) extended
or constructive res judicata i.e., ?unraised
issue estoppel,? where an issue is sought to
be litigated which could, and should, have
been raised in a previous action but was not
raised; (iv) a further extension of the
aforesaid to points not raised in relation to
an issue in the earlier decision, as opposed
to issues not raised in relation to the
decision itself."

31. Now, applying the aforesaid
principles to the instant case, it would
reveal that the prayers contained in this
petition are quite similar to the prayers
contained in Writ Tax No.220 of 2024 and
Writ Tax No.330 of 2024. Apparently, no
relief was claimed for exemption of predeposit either in Writ Tax No.330 of 2024
nor in the instant petition despite knowing
the fact that the appeal was denied for want
of making the 10% pre-deposit as provided
in Section 106(6)(b) of the GST Act.
Hence, constructive res-judicata is clearly
attracted.

32. Thus, this Court finds that a
deliberate attempt has been made by the
petitioner by filing a successive writ
petition only to evade the pre-deposit of
10% as provided in the GST Act and it is
incorrect to state that the appellate
Authority by the impugned order rejected
the appeal on the ground of limitation as it
is clearly indicated in the impugned order
that the appeal is dismissed for want of
compliance of Section 107(6)(b) of the
GST Act, hence, for all the aforesaid
reasons, the petition is misconceived and is
accordingly dismissed. In the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 712
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

Special Appeal No. 384 of 2025

U.O.I. & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Pandey ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Anand Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Durgesh Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Legality of initiating the disciplinary proceeding
and passing the removal order merely on the
basis
of
incarceration
of
the
respondent/petitioner in a criminal case.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding
- Removal - Respondent/petitioner, while
working as Head Constable in CISF, was
incarcerated in a criminal case u/s 302
IPC - Charge of gross misconduct on
account of involvement in the criminal
case was leveled - At the time of issuance
of
the
charge-sheet
in
disciplinary
proceedings, the respondent/ petitioner
had not been convicted - Trial is still
pending - Effect - Disciplinary proceeding
was
concluded
in
removal
of
the
11 All. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Pandey
713
respondent/petitioner
-
Validity
challenged :
Held : It is unthinkable as to how, at the stage
of initiation of disciplinary proceedings or
passing of the removal order, any authority
whether it be the supervisory officer or the
disciplinary authority could have formed any
opinion based merely on the incarceration of the
respondent/ petitioner in respect of a criminal
case and his alleged involvement therein, even
if the offence was of a heinous nature, that he
was remiss or negligent in the discharge of his
duties or unfit for the same. Learned Single
Judge therefore, cannot be faulted for having
quashed the removal order, as, the very
initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in the facts
and circumstances of this case, for imposing
punishment of removal was without any factual
and legal basis - There was absolutely no basis
for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and
issuance
of
chargesheet
to
the
respondent/petitioner merely because of his
incarceration in respect of a criminal case.
[Paras 21 and 25] (E- 1)

Case Law Cited
Union of India vs. Rajiv Kumar, 2003 (6) SCC
516 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 311; Central
Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - S. 8(1);
Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 -
Rule 33 (2); CCS (Conduct ) Rules, 1964 - Rule
3 (i), (ii), (iii) and (xviii); Financial Handbook
Volume II Part II to IV - FR-53, FR-54A and FR54B.

List of Keywords
Incarceration;
Suspension;
Charge;
Gross
misconduct; Involvement in criminal case;
Chargesheet; Disciplinary proceeding; Removal;
Emolument; Integrity; Age of superannuation.

Case Arising From
Impugned
Judgement
and
order
dated
21.8.2024 of Single Judge quashing the removal
order passed against the the respondent
petitioner.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : S. B. Pandey, Senior
Advocte; Anand Dwivedi
Advs. For the Respondent : Durgesh Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.B. Pandey, learned
Senior Advocate & D.S.G.I. assisted by
Shri Anand Dwivedi, learned Counsel for
the appellants and Shri Durgesh Mishra,
learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. This special appeal has been filed
by the Union of India challenging the
judgement and order dated 21.8.2024
passed by learned Single Judge in Writ -A
No.22248 of 2021 (Vijay Kumar Pandey
Vs. Union of India and others ) by which
the writ petition filed by the respondent
petitioner has been allowed.

3. In the writ petition, the petitioner
sought the following reliefs :-

" i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing
impugned
orders
dated
17.12.2019; 04.02.2020 & 16.03.2021
passed by opposite party no. 5, 4 and 3
respectively (contained as Annexure No.1,
2 & 3 to the writ petition).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus directing the
opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner
in service and pay regular salary.

iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the opposite parties to pay the
forfeited remaining dues of suspension
period.

iv) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the opposite parties to pay the
back wages from the date he was ordered
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to be removed from service i.e. from
17.12.2019 till the date he gets reinstated
in service along with interest."

4. The facts of the case in brief are that
the respondent/ petitioner was appointed
and was working as Head Constable in the
Central
Industrial
Security
Force
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"CISF")
eversince 4.10.2009. Prior to it, he was
working in the Indian Army having been
appointed
therein
on
23.1.1984.
His
engagement in the CISF was after his
retirement from Indian Army on 31.1.2005.
The respondent/petitioner was an accused
in case Crime No.58/2019, under Sections
302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. lodged at Police
Station Khampar, District Deoria and in
this context, he was incarcerated from
1.5.2019 to 20.9.2019. He was enlarged on
bail on 23.9.2019. He requested the
appellant therein of being allowed to join
duties consequent to his enlargement on
bail but he was placed under suspension
under Sub rule 2 of Rule 33 of the Central
Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (
hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2001").

5. The respondent/petitioner remained
under suspension and he was served with a
chargesheet dated 26.9.2019. Ultimately,
he was removed from service.

6. The charge against the respondent
/petitioner is being reproduced as under :-

"केऔसुब इकाई ए०एस०जी० लखनऊ में कार्यरत बल
क्रमाांकः 091890012 प्रआ/जीडी (ननलांनबत) निजर् कुमार पाण्डेर्
को निनाांक 29.04.2019 थाना-खामपार, जनपि िेिररर्ा पुनलस
द्वारा पांजीकृत मु०आ०सां० 58/2019 के सांबांध में पूछताछ हेतु शाांनत
नगर लखनऊ से लेकर गई तथा निनाांक 30.04.2019 से निनाांक
01.05.2019 तक पुनलस अनिरक्षा में रखने के उपरान्त निनाांक
01.05.2019 को माननीर् न्र्ार्ालर् िेिररर्ा के समक्ष प्रस्तुत
नकर्ा। उक्त बल सिस्र् को निनाांक 01.05.2019 से निनाांक
20.09.2019 तक न्र्ानर्क अनिरक्षा में नजला कारागार िेिररर्ा में
बन्ि रखा गर्ा। निनाांक 20.09.2019 को माननीर् उच्च न्र्ार्ालर्
इलाहाबाि के आिेशानुसार िह जमानत पर ररहा हुआ। एक अनुशानसत
सशस्त्र बल के सिस्र् द्वारा, पुनलस अनिलेखानुसार आपरानधक कृत्र् में
सांनलप्त पार्ा जाना, केऔसुब जैसे सशस्त्र बल की छनि धूनमल करने
जैसा गांिीर िुर्वर्यिहार प्रिनशयत करता है। अतः आरोप है"

7. The grounds for the charges were
separately reduced in writing as Schedule -1
to the chargesheet which read as under :-

"केऔसुब इकाई ए०एस०जी० लखनऊ में कार्यरत बल
क्रमाांक: 091890012 प्रआ/जीडी (ननलांनबत) निजर् कुमार
पाण्डेर् को निनाांक 29.04.2019 को कतयर्वर् ननियहन के उपरान्त
उसके ननिास स्थान शाांनत नगर (सरोजनी नगर) पहुांचने पर उसे िेिररर्ा
पुनलस के 04-05 बल सिस्र् नमले तथा उन्होंने उसके निरुद्ध
आपरानधक कृत्र् में पांजीकृत मु०आ०सां० 58/2019 के सांबांध पुनलस
के िररष्ठ अनधकाररर्ों से पूछताछ का हिाला िेकर उसे लखनऊ से
थाना-खामपार, जनपि िेिररर्ा ले गए तथा निनाांक 30.04.2019 से
निनाांक 01.05.2019 तक पुनलस अनिरक्षा में रखने के उपरान्त निनाांक
01.05.2019 को माननीर् न्र्ार्ालर् िेिररर्ा के समक्ष प्रस्तुत नकर्ा।
निनाांक 01.05.2019 को पुनलस अधीक्षक जनपि िेिररर्ा के पत्राांक
सांखर्ाः एसटी-एसपी-सी-43/2019 निनाांक 01.05.2019 के तहत
र्ह सूचना प्राप्त हुई नक केऔसुब इकाई एएसजी लखनऊ में तैनात निजर्
कुमार पाण्डेर् पुत्र स्ि० मैनेजर पाण्डेर् थाना-खामपार, िेिररर्ा के निरुद्ध
मु०आ०सां० 58/2019 धारा 302/201/120बी िािनि की नििेचना
से साक्ष्र् पाए जाने पर पुनलस टीम द्वारा नगरफ्तार कर निनाांक
01.05.2019 को न्र्ार्ालर् के समक्ष प्रस्तुत नकर्ा गर्ा । उक्त बल
सिस्र् को पुनलस अनिरक्षा में होने के कारण निनाांक 03.05.2019 को
कार्ायलर् पत्राांक सांखर्ा (472) निनाांक 03.05.2019 के तहत
ननलांनबत नकर्ा गर्ा। उक्त बल सिस्र् को निनाांक 23.09.2019 को
इकाई में उपनस्थत हुआ और बतार्ा नक उच्च न्र्ार्ालर् से जमानत नमलने
के पश्चात् नजला कारागार से ररहा नकर्ा गर्ा तथा बल सिस्र् द्वारा निनाांक
30.04.2019 से निनाांक 20.09.2019 तक न्र्ानर्क अनिरक्षा में
नजला कारागार िेिररर्ा में बन्ि रखा गर्ा। एक अनुशानसत सशस्त्र बल के
सिस्र् द्वारा, पुनलस अनिलेखानुसार आपरानधक कृत्र् में सांनलप्त पार्ा जाना,
केऔसुब जैसे सशस्त्र बल की छनि धूनमल करने जैसा गांिीर िुर्वर्यिहार
प्रिनशयत करता है। अतः आरोप है।"

8. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid
charge, it is evident that all that was alleged
11 All. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Pandey
715
against the respondent/petitioner was that
he
had
remained
incarcerated
from
1.5.2019 to 20.9.2019 in connection with
the above mentioned criminal case, till he
was enlarged on bail. The charge alleged
was of gross misconduct on the part of the
respondent/petitioner on account of his
involvement in the aforesaid criminal case.

9. At the time of issuance of the
chargesheet in disciplinary proceedings, the
respondent/
petitioner
had
not
been
convicted.

10. Ultimately, the said disciplinary
proceedings resulted in removal of the
respondent/ petitioner vide order dated
17.12.2019. Obviously, consequent upon
his removal, suspension of the respondent/
petitioner came to an end. The entire
emoluments which would have been paid
to the respondent/ petitioner were forfeited
in view of his removal from service.

11. It is this removal order which was
put to challenge apart from other reliefs
sought as already quoted hereinabove, by
means of the Writ -A No.22248/2021,
which has been allowed.

12. Before the writ court, the appellant
relied on Section 8 (i) of the C.I.S.F.Act,
1968 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of
1968") to justify the removal of the
respondent/ petitioner from service

13. Section 8 of the Act of 1968 reads
as under :-

"8. Dismissal, removal, etc., of
members of the Force. Subject to the
provisions
of
Article
311
of
the
Constitution and to such rules as the
Central Government may make under this
Act, any supervisory officer may-

(I). Dismiss, [remove] [order for
compulsory retirement of,] or reducing in
rank, any [enrolled member] of the Force
whom he thinks remiss or negligent in the
discharge of his duty, or unfit for the
same.'

14. We may in this context also refer
to Rule 32 of the Central Industrial Security
Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to
as "Rules, 2001") which pertain to
disciplinary proceedings. Sub rule 3 of the
Rule 32 of the Rules, 2001 reads as under :

"32(3). A disciplinary authority
competent under Schedule 1 to impose any
of the penalties specified in Clause (vi) to
(x) of rule 34, may institute disciplinary
proceedings against any enrolled member
of the Forces for imposition of any of the
penalties specified in Clauses (i) to Clause
(v) of Rule 34, notwithstanding that such
disciplinary authority is not competent
under Schedule -1 to impose any such
penalty.'

15. These disciplinary rules have to
be read conjointly with Section 8(i) of the
Act of 1968 at least for the purpose of these
proceedings.

16. Now when we read Section 8, it
provides that subject to the provisions of
Article 311 of the Constitution of India
and
to
such
rule
as
the
Central
Government may make under this Act,
any supervisory officer may dismiss,
remove, order for compulsory retirement,
or reduce in rank any enrolled member of
the Force whom he thinks remiss or
negligence in discharge of his duty, or
unfit for the same.

17. The other provisions of this
Section are not relevant for our purposes,
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as, in this case, the respondent/petitioner
has been removed from service.

18.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant before us has also relied upon
Rule 77, according to which, members
of the Force, shall in respect of all
matters regarding conditions of service
for which no provision or insufficient
provisions have been made in these rules
be governed by the rules and orders for
the time being applicable to officers
holding corresponding posts in the
Central Government in respect of all
such matters.

19. In this context, learned counsel
for the appellant refers to Rule 3 (i), (ii),
(iii) and (xviii) of the CCS (Conduct )
Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as
"Rules, 1964") applicable to Central
Government employees, to contend that
because of the respondent/petitioners
involvement
in
the
commission
of
criminal offence, which is of the heinous
nature, he was liable to be removed.
Accordingly, he was so removed after
drawing disciplinary proceedings against
him. Rule 3 (i), (ii), (iii) and (xviii) of the
Rules, 1964 read as under :-

 (1) Every Government servant
shall at all times-

(i) maintain absolute integrity;

(ii) maintain devotion to duty;
and

(iii)
do
nothing
which
is
unbecoming of a Government servant.

.....

.....

(xviii)
refrain
from
doing
anything which is or may be contrary to
any law, rules, regulations and established
practices;

....

...

20. The learned Single Judge did not
accept the abovementioned contention in
view of language used in Section 8 of the
Act of 1968 according to which such
dismissal or removal of any enrolled
member of the Force would be made for
the supervisory officer finds him to be
remiss, negligent in discharge of his duty or
unfit for the same which was not the case
here.

21. The only charge against the
respondent/petitioner was that he was
incarcerated for a certain period in
connection with a criminal case, which was
of a heinous nature. As on the date of
initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the
respondent/
petitioner
had
not
been
convicted. Even today, the trial is pending
and the respondent/petitioner has not been
convicted for the offence alleged for which
he has been charged. It is therefore,
unthinkable as to how, at the stage of
initiation of disciplinary proceedings or
passing of the removal order, any authority
whether it be the supervisory officer or the
disciplinary authority could have formed
any
opinion
based
merely
on
the
incarceration of the respondent/ petitioner
in respect of a criminal case and his alleged
involvement therein, even if the offence
was of a heinous nature, that he was remiss
or negligent in the discharge of his duties
or unfit for the same. Learned Single Judge
therefore, cannot be faulted for having
quashed the removal order, as, the very
11 All. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Pandey
717
initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in the
facts and circumstances of this case, for
imposing punishment of removal was
without any factual and legal basis. Merely
because a person has been incarcerated in
connection with an offence of murder or
conspiracy to murder, cannot be a ground
for removal though it may a ground for
suspending him i.e. if the trial is pending.

22. As regards reliance placed by the
learned counsel for the appellant upon Rule
3 of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964,
assuming that the said rules are applicable
when read conjointly with Rule 77 of the
CISF
Rules,
2001,
one
fails
to
understanding as to how, in absence of any
finding in the trial and in the absence of his
conviction for the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., any such
conclusion could have been arrived at, that
the
respondent/petitioner
had
not
maintained absolute integrity; he had not
maintained devotion of duty; he had done
something which was unbecoming of a
government servant and that he had not
refrained from doing anything which may
be contrary to any law, rules, regulations
and established practices, so as to lead to
his removal from service. There was no
finding by the trial court that the
respondent had committed an offence for
which he had been charged. There is no
such finding even today. Therefore, all
these were merely presumptions which
were drawn and were without any factual
and legal basis.

23. The appropriate course should
have been to place the respondent/
petitioner under suspension under Rule 33
(1) (b) of CISF Rules, 2001 which was not
done, instead the respondent/petitioner was
placed under suspension under Rule 33 (2)
of the Rules, 2001.

24. As regards deemed suspension of
an official/employe on account of his
incarceration, the law has been discussed
and elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Union of
India Versus Rajiv Kumar : 2003 (6) SCC
516 albeit in the context of Rule 10 of the
CCS Rules, 1957 etc. which is substantially
similar to Rule 33 of Rules, 2001. It has
been held that such suspension cannot
continue automatically or mechanically
after his release, and there has to be due
and proper application of mind whether to
continue
or
not
to
continue
such
suspension, but we see no such exercise in
this regard. We say no more as it is the
punishment order which is in issue.

25. In view of the reasons already
given hereinabove, we are of the opinion
that there was absolutely no basis for
initiation of the disciplinary proceedings
and
issuance
of
chargesheet
to
the
respondent/petitioner merely because of his
incarceration in respect of a criminal case,
nor was there any factual or legal basis for
removing the applicant from service on the
said count.

26. Learned Single Judge has rightly
quashed the order of removal as also the
appellate and Revisional order.

27. As regards suspension of the
respondent/petitioner
is
concerned,
he
attained the age of superannuation on
31.1.2025, therefore, there is no question of
his continued suspension during pendency
of the trial.

28.
As
regards
the
period
of
suspension and the emoluments which
would be payable to him, considering the
fact that chargesheet was filed against
respondent/petitioner
and
trial
was/is
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending and as there are provisions
contained in FR-53, FR-54A and FR-54B
of Financial Handbook Volume II Part II to
IV which cover the subject, we are of the
opinion that in the facts of this case, instead
of issuing a direction to pay the dues
payable to the respondent for the period of
suspension, and/or for the period he
remained out of service based on an illegal
order of removal till his attaining the age of
superannuation/ retirement, the writ court
should
have
directed
the
competent
authority to take a decision as per the Rules
applicable. Accordingly, we direct the
appellant to take a decision in this regard
keeping in mind the observations/ findings
given hereinabove, but in accordance with
relevant Rules pertaining to the subject in
question such as FR-53, FR-54A and FR
54B of Financial Handbook Volume II Part
II to IV as may be applicable or such other
Rules as may be applicable. This exercise
is to be done within a period of three month
from the date of submission of a certified
copy of this order.

29. As regards payment of post
retiral dues, although
according to the
Counsel for the appellant, there is a
provision in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
which contains an embargo regarding
payment of retiral dues where a criminal
trial is pending and the said Rules are
applicable to the C.I.S.F., in view of Rule
77 of the Rules, 2001, this aspect has not
been considered by ld Single Judge,
therefore, in this regard also a considered
decision should be taken by the competent
authority as per relevant rules and law
applicable within aforesaid three months.

30. We therefore, while sustaining the
judgement of the writ court to quash the
order of removal from service dated
17.12.2019 as also the appellate and
revisional orders in this regard, modify the
remaining portion of the judgement by
which dues for the period of respondent's
suspension and post retiral dues have been
ordered to be paid to him, in terms as
already mentioned earlier.

31. Subject to above, the appeal is
allowed but only in part.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 718
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 918 of 2024

State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Shri
M.C.
Chaturvedi
(A.A.G.)
with
Sudhanshu Srivastava (A.C.S.C.), Ankit
Gaur (S.C.), Abhishek Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.) with Parashar
Pandey,
Siddharth
Khare,
Tej
Bhanu
Pandey

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether prescribing 'graduation' as minimum
qualification beyond what has been prescribed
under Clause 3.2 of Appendix-2 forming part of
Regulations of 2014 is rational or irrational?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981: Rule 2(q);
U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules,