# Vijay Bahadur Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 554
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-05
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 1934 of 2018
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-bahadur-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54661
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Compulsory retirement -
The petitioner has been inflicted with censure
entry in 2007 and five annual increments were
withheld in the 2010 and again in the year
2012, censure entry was awarded in his
character roll. The aforesaid entries clearly
indicate that there was sufficient material before
the screening committee to conclude that the
petitioner was a deadwood and accordingly,
provision of Regulation 56 of the Financial Hand
Book 2 to 4 were clearly applicable in the case
of the petitioner. (Para 15)

The screening committee constituted of the Sub
Divisional Officer, who was the appointing
authority of the petitioner, apart from the
Tehsildar, Kanoongo and Revenue Inspector. In
the present case, the appointing authority was
mandated by the GO dated 26.10.1985 to be a
part
of
the
screening
committee
and
accordingly, he had examined the entire service
record of the petitioner and was a party to the
screening committee. He in his capacity as the
appointing authority has issued letter dated
18.10.2019 compulsory retiring the petitioner
relying on the report of screening committee.
There is no infirmity in the said order, as the
Sub Divisional Officer himself was the Presiding
Officer of the screening committee and was duly
aware of the facts and circumstances of the said
report and accordingly, the argument of
learned counsel for petitioner and there
was absence of subjective satisfaction is
clearly not made out in peculiar facts of
the present case. (Para 14)

B.
There
is
no
doubt
even
if
the
government servant is compulsory retired,
he is certainly entitled for all service dues
for which he is entitled as per rules.
Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioner to
move a fresh representation to respondent no. 3
i.e. Sub Divisional Officer Mitauli, District
Lakhimpur Kheri giving all the details of the
dues to which he is entitled. (Para 18)

C. Words and Phrases - 'Quorum' -
'Quorum denotes the minimum number of
members of any body of persons whose
presence is necessary in order to enable that
body to transact its business validly so that its
acts may be lawful. (Para 9)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Punjab University, Chandigarh Vs Vijay Singh
Lamba & ors., (1976) 3 SCC 334 (Para 9)

Present petition challenges order dated
18.10.2017, passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer/appointing
authority,
Mitauli,
Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the petitioner
has been compulsorily retired from the
service.

## Text

554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
प्रस्तरों में ििाट की गई है और उभय पक्षों
के ववद्वान अचधवक्ताओं द्वारा प्रस्तुत
तकों को सुनने के पश्िात हम पाते हैं कक
मामले के तथ्य के साक्षीगण और पीडड़ता
के बयान चिककत्सीय साक्ष्य से मेल नहीं
खाते हैं। साथ ही इस तथ्य को भी शासमल
ककया गया कक साक्षीगण द्वारा अपराध को
देखने के तरीके में ववरोधाभास है। इस स्तर
पर हम सुवविाररत राय के हैं कक
असभयोिन पक्ष, अपीलाथी/असभयुक्तगण के
ववरुद्ध लगाए गए दुरािार के आरोपों को
बख बी साबबत करने में ववफल रहा है तथा
अपीलाथी/असभयुक्त संदेह का लाभ पाने का
हकदार है। पीडड़ता के कथनों में ववरोधाभाष
के कारण उसे (पीडड़ता) को ननववटवाद
पीडड़ता की संज्ञा नहीं दी िा सकती है।
अतः पीडड़ता के कथनों के ववरोधाभाष एवं
अन्य ककसी संपुजष्ट की अनुलब्धता में
अपीलाथी को सिा ददया िाना उचित न
होगा।

२२. तद्नुसार, पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध
उपरोक्त संप णट साक्ष्यों पर वविार-ववमशट करने
के मद्देनिर, यह आपराधधि अपील स्वीिार
िी जाती है तथा मु०अ०सं० 436/2018, धारा
376डी, 506 भा०दं०वव० व धारा 4 लैंचगक
अपराधों से बालकों का संरक्षण अचधननयम
2012, थाना नवाबगंि, िनपद बरेली से उद्भ त
फौिदारी वाद सं० 303/2020 (उ०प्र० राज्य
बनाम राम ककशोर उफट रामककशन) को अपास्त
ककया िाता है तथा अपीलाथी/ असभयुक्त को
धारा 376डी भा०दं०वव० के अधीन आिीवन
कारावास और एक लाख रूपये के अथटदण्ड व
अथटदण्ड अदा न करने की दशा में छः-छः माह
का अनतररक्त साधारण कारावास एवं धारा 506
(2) भा०दं०वव० के अधीन पांि वषट कारावास
और सात हिार रूपये के अथटदण्ड व अथटदण्ड
अदा न करने की दशा में एक माह का
अनतररक्त कारावास के दण्ड के अधीन दजण्डत
अपराध से दोषमुक्त ककया िाता है।

२३. अपीलाथी/असभयुक्त, यदद धारा 437-ए
दं०प्र०सं० के अनुपालन के अधीन ककसी अन्य
मामले में वांनछत न हो तो उसे अववलंब
कारागार से अवमुक्त कर ददया िाय।

२४. कायाटलय को ननदेसशत ककया िाता है
कक वविारण न्यायालय का असभलेख वापस
भेि ददया िाय तथा इस आदेश की एक
प्रनतसलवप संबंचधत वविारण न्यायालय को
अनुपालन हेतु तुरंत भेिना सुननजश्ित ककये
िाय।
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 554
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 1934 of 2018

Vijay Bahadur Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
11 All. Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
Saontosh Kumar Kanaujia, Diwakar Singh
Kaushik

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Compulsory retirement -
The petitioner has been inflicted with censure
entry in 2007 and five annual increments were
withheld in the 2010 and again in the year
2012, censure entry was awarded in his
character roll. The aforesaid entries clearly
indicate that there was sufficient material before
the screening committee to conclude that the
petitioner was a deadwood and accordingly,
provision of Regulation 56 of the Financial Hand
Book 2 to 4 were clearly applicable in the case
of the petitioner. (Para 15)

The screening committee constituted of the Sub
Divisional Officer, who was the appointing
authority of the petitioner, apart from the
Tehsildar, Kanoongo and Revenue Inspector. In
the present case, the appointing authority was
mandated by the GO dated 26.10.1985 to be a
part
of
the
screening
committee
and
accordingly, he had examined the entire service
record of the petitioner and was a party to the
screening committee. He in his capacity as the
appointing authority has issued letter dated
18.10.2019 compulsory retiring the petitioner
relying on the report of screening committee.
There is no infirmity in the said order, as the
Sub Divisional Officer himself was the Presiding
Officer of the screening committee and was duly
aware of the facts and circumstances of the said
report and accordingly, the argument of
learned counsel for petitioner and there
was absence of subjective satisfaction is
clearly not made out in peculiar facts of
the present case. (Para 14)

B.
There
is
no
doubt
even
if
the
government servant is compulsory retired,
he is certainly entitled for all service dues
for which he is entitled as per rules.
Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioner to
move a fresh representation to respondent no. 3
i.e. Sub Divisional Officer Mitauli, District
Lakhimpur Kheri giving all the details of the
dues to which he is entitled. (Para 18)

C. Words and Phrases - 'Quorum' -
'Quorum denotes the minimum number of
members of any body of persons whose
presence is necessary in order to enable that
body to transact its business validly so that its
acts may be lawful. (Para 9)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Punjab University, Chandigarh Vs Vijay Singh
Lamba & ors., (1976) 3 SCC 334 (Para 9)

Present petition challenges order dated
18.10.2017, passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer/appointing
authority,
Mitauli,
Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the petitioner
has been compulsorily retired from the
service.

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

1. Heard Shri Diwakar Singh Kaushik,
learned counsel for petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State and perused
the material available on record.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned order dated 18.10.2017 passed
by the Sub Divisional Officer/appointing
authority,
Mitauli,
Lakhimpur
Kheri,
whereby
the
petitioner
has
been
compulsory retired from service.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that the petitioner
was appointed on the post of Lekhpal in the
year 1984 in Tehsil Lakhimpur District
Kheri and subsequently he was transferred
to Tehsil Gola in the year 1988 and in 1994
to Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri. It
has further been stated that certain
disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner in 2002 whereby on
25.07.2002 he was placed under suspension
on the allegation that he had not attended
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the work relating to revision of voters list
and has not carried out agricultural
accounts and he was not present on the
Tehsil Day. The inquiry proceedings
concluded
on
31.03.2003
and
a
punishment of censure order was passed
against the petitioner. Against the order of
punishment of censure, the petitioner had
preferred a statutory appeal before the
District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri,
which was also rejected on 30.07.2012 and
subsequently a writ petition was also filed
before this Court being Writ Petition No.
906 (SS) of 2013, which was allowed on
20.02.2013 and the order of punishment
dated 30.07.2012 was quashed and the
matter was remanded to the Prescribed
Authority for deciding afresh after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Again in the remand proceedings, fresh
order of punishment was passed, against
which also an appeal was also rejected,
against which the petitioner approached
before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal by
filing a claim petition, against which fresh
order of punishment dated 31.03.2003,
which was pending consideration when the
decision was taken to compulsory retire the
petitioner.

4. It has further been stated that by
means of the impugned order, it seems that
service record of the petitioner was duly
examined by a screening committee, who
had made a recommendation to the
appointing authority and the appointing
authority in turn has concurred with the
report of the screening committee and
considering the fact that the petitioner has
crossed the age of 50 years, he has been
compulsory retired after giving three
months wages in lieu of notice.

5. The first ground urged by the
petitioner in assailing the said order is
that
a
screening
committee
was
constituted contrary to the Government
Order dated 26.10.19085. It has been
submitted that in the Government Order
dated 26.10.1985, it has been provided
that in case the appointing authority of
the government servant is other than the
Governor then the screening committee
would constitute (1) of the appointing
authority
(2)
two
senior
officials
nominated by the appointing authority.

6. In the present case, the screening
committee
consisted
of
the
Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Mitauli-Kheri,
Tehsildar,
Mitauli-Kheri,
Kanoongo
Mitauli-Kheri and Revenue Inspector,
Aurangabad, accordingly, it is stated that
there were four persons in the screening
committee rather than three persons as
required in the Government Order dated
26.10.1985. The only ground urged by
the petitioner is that the screening
committee consisted of more persons than
is required under the Government Order
Dated 26.10.1985.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand has opposed the said ground.
He
has
submitted
that
in-fact
the
minimum number of persons in the
screening committee should be three as
per Government Order dated 26.10.1985.
He has submitted that in the screening
committee, which was constituted to
consider the case of the petitioner
undoubtedly the appointing authority was
the Chairman of the said committee and
he was accompanied by three other
officials
in
the
Tehsil
including,
Thesildar,
Kanoongo
and
Revenue
Inspector.

8. This Court has considered the
Government Order dated 26.10.1985 and
11 All. Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557
finds that the requirement is of minimum
three persons and the three persons should
at-least including the appointing authority.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Punjab University, Chandigarh Vs.
Vijay Singh Lamba and others reported in
(1976) 3 SCC 334 has defined "Quorum"
as 'Quorum' denotes the minimum number
of members of any body of persons whose
presence is necessary in order to enable that
body to transact its business validly so that
its acts may be lawful. Therefore, by the
fixation of quorum, only a minimum
number of members are prescribed and it
does not imply that any member more than
the prescribed number may be denied
opportunity to participate unless the statute
itself provides for the maximum limit of the
quorum.
Accordingly,
the
mandatory
condition is that the appointing authority
should be a part of the screening committee
in case the appointing authority of the
government servant is other than the
Governor and should include the two senior
officials. In the present case, the condition
as prescribed in the Government Order
dated 26.10.1985 are clearly fulfilled,
inasmuch as the case of the petitioner was
duly
considered
by
the
screening
committee consisting of four persons. This
Court does not find any infirmity in the
constitution of the screening committee.

10.
Apart
from
the
above,
no
allegations of the mala-fide have been
levelled by the petitioner against member
of the screening committee, which may
render him disqualified to participate in the
screening committee, accordingly, this
Court does not find force in the said
ground, which is accordingly, rejected.

11. The only other ground, which was
urged by the petitioner is that there was no
subjective satisfaction of the authority
concerned before passing of the order of
the compulsory retirement.

12. It was argued by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the report has been
accepted by the Sub Divisional Officer and
no reasons have been spelt out clearly
indicating the same has been passed
without any application of mind.

13. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand has submitted that once it is
clear that the appointing authority i.e., the
Sub Divisional Officer was himself the
Presiding
Officer
of
the
screening
committee and it is the said screening
committee which had looked into the
previous record of the petitioner before
concluding that he was fit case for being
compulsory retired, no other reason was
required to be given by him while
accepting his own report.

14. After hearing rival contentions and
perusing the record, this Court has already
noticed that the screening committee
constituted of the Sub Divisional Officer,
who was the appointing authority of the
petitioner,
apart
from
the
Tehsildar,
Kanoongo and Revenue Inspector. In the
present case, the appointing authority was
mandated by the Government Order dated
26.10.1985 to be a part of screening
committee
and
accordingly,
he
had
examined the entire service record of the
petitioner and was a party to the screening
committee. He in his capacity as the
appointing authority has issued letter dated
18.10.2019
compulsory
retiring
the
petitioner relying on the report of screening
committee. Accordingly, we do not find
any infirmity in the said order, inasmuch
as, the Sub Divisional Officer himself was
the Presiding Officer of the screening
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
committee and was duly aware of the facts
and circumstances of the said report and
accordingly, the argument of learned
counsel for petitioner that there was
absence of subjective satisfaction is clearly
not made out in the peculiar facts of the
present case.

15. Apart from the above, this Court
has examined the fact that the petitioner has
been inflicted with censure entry in 2007
and five annual increments were withheld
in the 2010 and again in the year 2012,
censure entry was awarded in his character
roll. The aforesaid entries clearly indicate
that there was sufficient material before the
screening committee to conclude that the
petitioner
was
a
deadwood
and
accordingly, provision of Regulation 56 of
the Financial Hand Book 2 to 4 were
clearly applicable in the case of the
petitioner.

16. In light of the above, no other
ground
was
urged
in
assailing
the
impugned order, accordingly, the petition
being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

17. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that due to pendency
of the present writ petition, even admissible
dues of the petitioner of his compulsory
retirement has also not been given by the
State Government.

18. There is no doubt even if the
government servant is compulsory retired,
he is certainly entitled for all service dues
for which he is entitled as per rules.
Accordingly, liberty is given to the
petitioner to move a fresh representation to
respondent no. 3 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer
Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri giving
all the details of the dues to which he is
entitled. Let the representation be given to
the respondent no. 3 within a period of
three weeks. In case such a representation
is given, the respondent no. 3 shall consider
and decide the same by a reasoned and
speaking
order
within
six
weeks
thereafter. In case he finds that the
petitioner is entitled to the claims made by
him in the said representation, he shall
ensure that the same are disbursed to the
petitioner with expedition say within a
period of one month thereafter.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 558
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Appeal (Defective) No. 1431 of 2023

Chandan Mishra @ Shailesh Mishra
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.T. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164, 173(2) & 375, -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354-A -
The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 11 & 12 -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 3(1)X - Appeals - against Conviction
and Sentence - written complaint - FIR -
offence of Sexual assault and attempt to rape of
a minor girl Child - Investigation - Final report
u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. - Cognizance - Summoning
Order - Bail Granted - Charges framed -
Application to plead guilty - Request for
concluding the Trial - conviction - sentencing -
Application for release from custody - Dismissed