# Vidya Kishor v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 456
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-19
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6576 of 2023
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vidya-kishor-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54543
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Raj
Kumar
Upadhyaya
(R.K.
Upadhyaya)

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Reversion to original post -
Allegation
of
demanding
the
illegal
gratification - Video is alleged to be
available, but the copy of CD was never
provided during inquiry - The petitioner
was also never confronted with the
contents of the CD - Effect - CD was not
available till the stage of inquiry, but the
same was considered by Disciplinary
Authority - Permissibility - Held, even if
the Disciplinary Authority has to consider
the contents of the CD, it was necessary
for him to give notice to the petitioner
alongwith a copy of the CD and confront
the petitioner with regard to the contents
thereof - By not providing copy of CD and
on
the
other
hand
considering
the
contents
of
the
same
against
the
petitioner has vitiated the entire inquiry
proceedings - High Court set aside the
punishment order. (Para 11, 12 and 15)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expeditiously, preferably within six weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is placed before him in accordance with
law.

22. In light of the above, the writ
petition stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 456
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 6576 of 2023

Vidya Kishor ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Charitra Pandey, Shashank Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Raj
Kumar
Upadhyaya
(R.K.
Upadhyaya)

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Reversion to original post -
Allegation
of
demanding
the
illegal
gratification - Video is alleged to be
available, but the copy of CD was never
provided during inquiry - The petitioner
was also never confronted with the
contents of the CD - Effect - CD was not
available till the stage of inquiry, but the
same was considered by Disciplinary
Authority - Permissibility - Held, even if
the Disciplinary Authority has to consider
the contents of the CD, it was necessary
for him to give notice to the petitioner
alongwith a copy of the CD and confront
the petitioner with regard to the contents
thereof - By not providing copy of CD and
on
the
other
hand
considering
the
contents
of
the
same
against
the
petitioner has vitiated the entire inquiry
proceedings - High Court set aside the
punishment order. (Para 11, 12 and 15)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Charitra Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Sri
Sandeep
Chandra,
alongwith
Sri
Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents and Sri Raj
Kumar
Upadhyaya,
learned
counsel
appearing for respondent no. 6.

2. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
was working on the post of Circle Officer
in District - Rampur at the relevant point of
time has approached this Court assailing an
order of punishment dated 11.08.2023,
passed
against
him
in
disciplinary
proceedings whereby he has been inflicted
with punishment of reversion to the
original post (Mool Pad).

3. It has been next submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that while
the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer
at district Rampur, disciplinary proceedings
which related to an incident occurred on
05.04.2021, where one Smt. Sadhna Singh
R/o district Bareilly gave an application to
the Circle Officer (petition) on 05.04.2021
at Police Station - Police Lines for lodging
first information report, but the petitioner
did not take any action on the said
application.
Subsequently,
complainant
moved an application to the Superintendent
of Police, Rampur and also to the higher
officials, but still first information report
was not lodged and it is only subsequently,
when
Superintendent
of
Police
was
transferred that the said first information
report was lodged as Case Crime No. 404
of 2021, under Sections 376D, 323, 326,
2 All. Vidya Kishor Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
506, 406 IPC, at Police Station - Ganj,
District - Rampur.

4. It has been further submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that to
investigate the said offence SIT was also
constituted. Through SIT investigation, it
came to knowledge of the authorities that
bribe of Rs.35,00,000/- was taken by the
Circle Officer and in the said video it was
seen that it was the petitioner who
demanded illegal gratification and when the
aforesaid facts came to light, decision was
taken by the respondents to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against petitioner.

5. The inquiry proceedings were
initiated and the petitioner was afforded
opportunity to defend himself and he also
submitted reply denying all the charges and
the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on
08.08.2022, holding the petitioner guilty of
both the charges levelled against him. The
petitioner was issued show cause notice
alongwith copy of inquiry report, to which
he replied on 19.09.2022 and ultimately
impugned order of punishment was passed
on 11.08.2023.

6. It has been submitted that prior to
punishment order being passed the State
Government had taken approval of the U.P.
Public Service Commission as provided for
in the relevant rules.

7. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that inquiry report
as well as punishment order are vitiated and
on account of the fact that firstly the State
Government on its Twitter Handel has
published that the order of punishment has
been
passed
against
petitioner
on
11.11.2022 itself, which was prior to
passing of impugned order on 11.08.2023.
It is submitted that clearly the respondents
had already taken decision to punish the
petitioner
and
proceedings
conducted
against him were merely sequel to the
decision taken by the respondents, and
accordingly entire exercise was illegal and
arbitrary and without any application of
mind.

8. The second ground raised by the
petitioner
for
assailing
the
aforesaid
proceedings is that once all the material on
the basis of which petitioner has been
inflicted
with
punishment
in
the
disciplinary proceedings is the compact
disc (CD) on which it is alleged that
petitioner can be seen discussing the said
issue and also demanding bribe, and copy
of the same was never provided to the
petitioner and is not part of the inquiry
report.

9. In this regard it is stated that there is
no dispute that original CD had been sent
to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its
authentication, but till the time inquiry was
conducted report of Forensic Science
Laboratory was not available and therefore
despite requests having been made copy of
the said CD was never provided to the
petitioner. It is further submitted that the
inquiry
proceedings
concluded
by
considering various statements which were
available with the Inquiry Officer and there
is no mention of the CD by the Inquiry
Officer in his entire report. It is for this
reason that the Inquiry Officer never
considered the material available on the
CD. It is undisputed that report of Forensic
Science Laboratory was received on
27.01.2023
which
much
after
the
submission of the inquiry report on
08.08.2022.
Surprisingly,
it
is
after
submission of reply by the petitioner that
the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned
order has considered all the aspects of the
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CD and held that allegations contained
therein to be verified and from which he
has upheld the veracity of the charges
levelled against the petitioner.

10. There is no dispute with regard to
the
fact
that
petitioner
was
never
confronted with the contents of the CD and
nor was he provided a copy of the same
during the inquiry proceedings.

11.
Considering
the
aforesaid
arguments it is also clear that the
Disciplinary Authority instead of confining
himself to the findings recorded by the
Inquiry Officer has proceeded further and
even considered the contents of the CD
which are not available till the stage of
inquiry proceedings.

12. We find force in the contentions
raised by the petitioner that even if the
Disciplinary Authority has to consider the
contents of the CD, it was necessary for him
to give notice to the petitioner alongwith a
copy of the CD and confront the petitioner
with regard to the contents thereof and only
after receiving response of the petitioner,
could he have proceeded to deal with the
contents of the CD in his order of
punishment. By not providing copy of CD
and on the other hand considering the
contents of the same against the petitioner has
vitiated the entire inquiry proceedings.

13. Considering the other ground raised
by the petitioner is with regard to publication
of the proposed punishment on the twitter
handle, we do not find much force inasmuch
as, undoubtedly the inquiry report was
submitted on 08.08.2022 and as the
appointing authority of the petitioner is the
State Government, it was within their domain
to pass order with regard to punishment of
the petitioner.

14. The State Government by means of
letter dated 09.11.2022 took decision with
regard to the punishment to be inflicted upon
the petitioner sent their proposal to the U.P.
Public
Service
Commissioner
for
its
approval. Clearly, by 09.11.2022, decision
has been taken with regard to the punishment
having been inflicted upon the petitioner and
it is only after approval of the Public
Service Commissioner that formal order
was issued on 11.08.2023. This Court is of
the considered view that it is in the
aforesaid circumstances, that decision was
taken by the State Government, but that
decision was not final and was subject to
the
approval
of
the
Public
Service
Commissioner
and
could
not
have
published on the twitter handle. Even if the
decision of the Government was published,
it does not indicate that the decision is
malafide or the proceedings have been
vitiated, inasmuch as, there is no doubt that
decision was infact been taken by the State
Government with regard to punishment
inflicted on the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, considering the
aforesaid fact and specially the fact that
relevant
material,
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances which is contained in the
CD were not given to the petitioner, is a
ground sufficient in itself to set aside the
inquiry proceedings and accordingly, the
impugned order dated 11.08.2023 is
hereby set aside.

16. The matter is remitted to the
Inquiry Officer to proceed with the inquiry
from the stage of submission of charge
sheet. In case respondent wish to rely upon
any other material including the CD, it
would be necessary for them to give a copy
of the same to the petitioner before
proceeding ahead with the inquiry in
accordance with law.
2 All. Shiv Datt Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459

17. Considering that much time has
lapsed since inflicting punishment upon the
petitioner, the respondents are directed to
conclude
the
inquiry
proceedings
expeditiously,
preferably
within
four
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order, in accordance
with law.

18. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 459
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 9193 of 2023
With
Writ A No. 5381 of 2024

Shiv Datt Joshi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rani Singh, Gaurav Mehrotra, Ritika Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Akhilesh Kumar Kalra, Jyotiresh
Pandey, Pooja Singh, Rajesh Chandra
Mishra, Santosh Kumar Mishra, Varadraj
Shreedutt Ojha

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
Seniority Rules, 1991 - Rules 8 & 9 -
Seniority - Earlier inter-se seniority has
been
finalized
after
deciding
the
objections - Seniority list was published
and acted upon too - Effect - How far it
create rights - Permissibility of its review
- Held, a vested right is created by
issuance of the seniority list in as much as
a government servant acquires a right to
be considered for promotion in case any
person lower in the seniority list is
promoted, similarly he can claim parity in
pay scale and other service benefits based
on seniority - It has all the trappings of a
quasi-judicial proceeding, and the St.
government was denuded of its powers to
embark to review of the order dated
13/07/2016 and the subsequent seniority
list on merits at the subsequent stage.
(Para 36 and 42)

B. Service Law - UP Government Servant
Seniority Rules, 1991 - Rules 8 & 9 -
Seniority - Long-standing seniority -
Inter-se seniority between the direct
recruits
and
the
promotees
was
determined - Scope of review - Doctrine
of functus officio - Applicability - Held,
once a final seniority list has been issued
after deciding the objections filed by the
concerned parties against the tentative
seniority list, finding authority becomes
functious officio and does not retain any
power to repeatedly exercise the same
power
to
redetermine
the
seniority
between the same group of persons again
and again - The longstanding seniority
which is in existence for 3-4 years may
not be unsettled. (Para 52 and 78)

C. Service Law - Seniority - Process of its
determination - Nature - Held, the
appointing authority is exercising quasijudicial
powers
of
determination
of
seniority and his actions would be subject
to the same limitations as that of a
judicial/quasi judicial authority. (Para 55)

D.
Judicial
review
-
Scope
-
Administrative action - Ministerial action
and administrative decision - Distinction -
In the ministerial action, the reasoning
processes is minimum and almost routine
- On the other hand, the administrative
decision the process in which a decision is
taken
on
objective
standard
of
determination of which opinions may
differ. The reasoning process takes into
account the rival contentions and then
comes a decision. This distinction is
important
because
an
administrative
action is always reviewable while an
administrative decision is the reviewable
in special circumstances. (Para 33)