# Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 962
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-17
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 12438 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50651
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Police Act, 1861 -
Section 7 - UP Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 - R. 14 - Appendix-1 -
Departmental enquiry - Procedure - No
approval to the chargesheet by competent
authority was alleged - Later on another
chargesheet was issued with the approval
of competent authority - Effect - Held,
the earlier chargesheet, that was issued
and signed by the inquiry officer himself.
was not at all required to be approved by
8 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
963
the disciplinary authority - However, since
now a fresh chargesheet has been issued
with the same charges and this time
approved by the higher authority, namely,
disciplinary
authority,
the
earlier
chargesheet stands superseded by the
subsequent chargesheet - The disciplinary
inquiry will now be held strictly as per the
procedure prescribed for under Appendix -
1 to the Rules, 1991. (Para 8 and 10)
B. Service Law - UP Government Service
Rules, 1999 - Special law Vs General law
- Applicability - Rules, 1991 is the special
rules applicable to the police department
and so on the principle that special law
will override the general law, the 1999
Rules will not be applicable in so far as the
disciplinary proceedings in respect of the
police personnel are concerned. (Para 12)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

## Text

962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
next 12 to 18 months of that date. A copy
of the list shall be sent to the Audit officer
not later than 31st January or 31st July,
as the case may be of that year.

9. I, therefore, direct that henceforth
rules 906 to 960 of the Civil Service
regulations be followed strictly by all
concerned
officials,
and
payment
of
pension must begin promptly on the
retirement of U.P. Government employee.
This mandamus must be strictly complied
with, and all those responsible for its
violation,
whether
in
the
parent
department of the retiring employee or in
the Accountant General's office shall be
held accountable at this Court for such
violation.

12. A copy of this judgment will be
sent
to
the
Chief
Secretary,
U.P.
Government,
Lucknow
and
also
the
Accountant General, U.P., Allahabad. The
Chief Secretary is directed to circulate
copies of this judgment to all heads of
departments for compliance of the general
mandamus hereinbefore issued."

15. As a matter of experience and
with most anguish, it is observed that the
said general mandamus is not being
obeyed
by
the
departments
and,
therefore, this Court is flooded with
hundreds and thousands of writ petitions
claiming post retiral benefits.

16. This writ petition is being
disposed of in the following terms:-

(a) The Executive Officer, Nagar
Palika Parishad, Seohara, District Bijnor
(respondent no.2) shall take up the matter
with utmost priority and take a decision on
the admissibility of post retiral benefits
payable to the petitioner, not later than by
15.10.2023.

(b) The Registrar General of this
Court is directed to send a copy of this
order to the Chief Secretary of the State
Government, U.P., Lucknow for the
purposes of issuance of requisite circular
to all the Departments under the control
of the State Government to ensure that
the directions issued by this Court in the
case of Mukti Nath Rai (supra), as
mentioned herein above, be complied
with in their true letter and spirit so that
the State, its instrumentalities and
common man may not indulge in
unnecessarily litigation.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 962
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 12438 of 2023
alongwith
Writ- A No. 17855 of 2022

Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Police Act, 1861 -
Section 7 - UP Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 - R. 14 - Appendix-1 -
Departmental enquiry - Procedure - No
approval to the chargesheet by competent
authority was alleged - Later on another
chargesheet was issued with the approval
of competent authority - Effect - Held,
the earlier chargesheet, that was issued
and signed by the inquiry officer himself.
was not at all required to be approved by
8 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
963
the disciplinary authority - However, since
now a fresh chargesheet has been issued
with the same charges and this time
approved by the higher authority, namely,
disciplinary
authority,
the
earlier
chargesheet stands superseded by the
subsequent chargesheet - The disciplinary
inquiry will now be held strictly as per the
procedure prescribed for under Appendix -
1 to the Rules, 1991. (Para 8 and 10)
B. Service Law - UP Government Service
Rules, 1999 - Special law Vs General law
- Applicability - Rules, 1991 is the special
rules applicable to the police department
and so on the principle that special law
will override the general law, the 1999
Rules will not be applicable in so far as the
disciplinary proceedings in respect of the
police personnel are concerned. (Para 12)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Both above petitions are being
heard and decided together as they raise
common question of law and facts.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner in Writ ? A No.- 17855 of 2022
has argued that chargesheet that was issued
to the petitioner leveling certain charges to
set up in motion disciplinary proceedings,
had no approval of the competent authority
as per the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules,
1991').
This
Court
while
entertaining this petition noted the ground
raised by petitioner and directed that the
disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the
chargesheet in question shall abide by
decision of the petition.

4. It transpires that while the matter
remained pending before this Court and
counter affidavit was filed, the department
proceeded to issue another chargesheet and
now this time by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Agra with the approval of
the higher competent authority. This
chargesheet has now come to be challenged
in the writ petition being Writ ? A No.-
12438 of 2023 on the ground that once the
competence
of
authority
in
issuing
chargesheet was already under challenge
before this Court and the chargesheet had
not been stayed, respondents were not
justified in issuing another chargesheet, this
time, may be, with the approval of the
higher authority.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while defending the first writ petition and
assailing the chargesheet has drawn the
attention of the Court towards Rule 14 of
the U.P. Police Officers of Sub-ordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1991 that provide for procedure for
conducting
departmental
inquiry.
According to him the procedure prescribes
that the chargesheet shall be issued and
inquiry be conducted in terms of the
Appendix- 1 to the rules that lays down the
procedure.

6. Per contra, it is argued by Mr. S.K.
Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel that the rules are absolutely silent
as to whether a chargesheet is required to
be approved further by the higher authority
and the inquiry officer would not be
competent in the matter. He submits rather
there is a form that has been prescribed for
issuance of chargesheet under the Police
Act, 1861 that authorizes even the inquiry
officer to issue chargesheet because it is he
who has to sign the document containing
article of charges and, therefore, he submits
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that petitioner is not justified in assailing
the chargesheet on the ground that it was
not approved by the disciplinary authority.
However he submits that now this time the
chargesheet has stood approved by the
higher authority and the charges are the
same as leveled in the earlier chargesheet
impugned in writ petition being Writ ? A
No.- 17855 of 2022 petitioner should not
have any grievance.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records and having gone to the relevant
provisions of the rules as cited by the
learned counsel for the respective parties
and the chargehseet that have been
challenged in both the writ petitions, I find
in the first place that the charges are same
except with the modality that this time
approved by higher competent authority
while the earlier chargesheet was issued by
the inquiry officer.

8. In such above view of the matter,
therefore, the controversy should not detain
this Court any longer as once the
chargesheet has stood substituted by
another chargesheet, which according to the
petitioner, would be a competent one, now
the petitions can be disposed of with a
direction to the authorities/ disciplinary
authority to proceed with the disciplinary
proceedings in accordance with law.
However, it would be relevant at the same
time to reproduce Rule 14 of the Rules,
1991 that runs as under:

"14.
Procedure
for
conducting
departmental proceedings- (1) subject to
the provisions contained in these rules, the
departmental proceedings in the case
referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 5 against
to the police officers may be conducted in
accordance with the procedure laid down
in appendix- I.

(2)-
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-rule (1) punishments in
cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5
may be imposed after informing the police
officer in writing of the action proposed to
be taken against him and of the imputations
of act or omission on which it is proposed
to be taken and giving him a reasonable
opportunity of making such representation
as he may wish to make against the
proposal.

(3)- The charged police officer shall
not be represented by Counsel in any
proceedings instituted under these rules."

(Emphasis added)

9. Now, I find upon bare reading of
relevant rules that refers to Appendix-1 to
the rules that lays down the procedure of
holding an inquiry and conduct the
disciplinary proceedings in detail. The
Appendix-1 talks about various procedures
to be adopted by the inquiry officer in the
matter of inquiry against the chargesheet
and, in the first place, it provides that
grounds
on
which
the
disciplinary
authorities is proposed to take action shall
be used in the form of definite charge or
charges as per Form-1. The Form-1 has
been
prescribed
for
the
disciplinary
proceedings under Section 7 of the Police
Act, 1861 and upon bare reading of the
same, I find that it is required to be issued
under the signature of the Inquiry Officer.
The Appendix of Form-1 to the Rules 1991
are reproduced hereunder:

"APPENDIX-1

PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE
CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL

ROCEEDINGS AGAINST POLICE
OFFICER
8 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
965

[ See RULE 14(1)]

Upon institution of a formal enquiry
such police officer against whom the
enquiry has been instituted shall be
informed in writing of the grounds on
which it is proposed to take action and
shall be afforded an adequate opportunity
of defending himself. The ground on which
it is proposed to take action shall be used
in the form of definite charge or charges as
in FORM-1 appended to these Rules which
shall be communicated to the charged
polices officer and which shall be so clear
and precise to give sufficient indication to
the charged police officer of the facts and
circumstances against him. He shall be
required, within a reasonable time, to put
in, in a written statement of his defence and
to state, whether he desires to be heard in
person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry
Officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be
held in respect of such of the allegation as
are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral
evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry
Officer considers necessary. The charge
police officer shall be entitled to crossexamine the witnesses, to give evidence in
person and to have such witnesses called as
he may wish:

Provided that the Inquiry officer may
for sufficient reasons to be recorded in
writing refuse to call a witness. The
proceedings shall contain a sufficient
record of the evidence and statement of the
finding and the ground thereof. The Inquiry
officer may also separately from these
proceedings make his own recommendation
regarding the punishment to be imposed on
the charged police officer.

FORM-1

Form of charge to be used in
proceeding under section 7 of the Police
Act, 1861

Office of the

To

Date: .......199...

(Full name and designation of the
police officer charged)

You are hereby charged as follows:
(1)
that
you
on
(or
about)
(or
between)................................and
................................ dated) while posted as
(designation)

and hereby

(Facts of the case)

committed
a
breach
of
rule
....................................................................o
r, were quality of discharge your duty, or
etc.

Evidence
which
it
proposed
to
consider in support of the charge---

(I)+

(II)+

(III)+
(2) that you* etc.
(3) that you* etc.
+ ( to be repeated as many times as there
charges)

You are hereby required on or
before.............................to put in a written
statement of your defence in reply to each
of the charges. You are warned that if no
such statement is received form you by the
undersigned within the time allowed , it be
presumed that you have none to furnish and
order's will be passed in your case
accordingly.

You
are
further
required
simultaneously to inform the undersigned
in writing whether you desire to be heard in
person and in case you wish to examine or
cross-examine any witnesses to submit
along with your written statement their
names and addresses together with a brief
indication of the evidence which each such
witness shall be expected to give.
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(Signature and designation of
Inquiring officer)

(For and on behalf of*)

CERTIFIED that the charge has read
over
and
explained
to.....................................(party charged) in
simple Hindi and a copy of the same was
handed over to.....................Received a
copy of charge.

(Signature and Designation of
inquiring officer)

Signature and party charged"

(Emphasis added)

10. Thus, from the above, it is
absolutely clear that even the earlier
chargesheet that was issued to the petitioner
and was signed by the inquiry officer
himself was not at all required to be
approved by the disciplinary authority.
However, since now a fresh chargesheet
has been issued with the same charges and
this time approved by the higher authority,
namely, disciplinary authority, I hold that
the earlier chargehseet stands superseded
by the subsequent chargehseet issued on
17th
June,
2023
and
accordingly
disciplinary inquiry will now be held
strictly as per the procedure prescribed for
under Appendix -1 to the Rules, 1991, into
the charges leveled under the chargehseet
dated 17th June, 2023.

11. It appears that the petitioner has
raised
certain
grounds
regarding
applicability of the U.P. Government
Service Rules, 1999 which provide that the
chargesheet should be approved by the
disciplinary authority.

12. In my considered view the Rules, 1991
are the special rules applicable to the police
department and so on the principle that
special law will override the general law,
the 1999 Rules will not be applicable in so
far as the disciplinary proceedings and in
respect of the police personnel are
concerned.

13. Petitioner is to submit his reply within
a period of four weeks from today and,
thereafter to cooperate in the disciplinary
proceedings.

14. With the above observations and
directions, both these petitions stand
disposed of.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 966
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-A No. 13308 of 2021

Pankjesh ...Petitioner
Versus
Chairman/Appellate Auth. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Roshni Shukla, Sri Prashant Vardhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Kishore Kakkar, Sri Amrish Sahai

A. Service Law - Bank's Vigilance Manual
- Clause 1 - Dismissal from service -
Departmental enquiry - Chargesheet was
served upon the petitioner on 18.10.2018
just 12 days prior to the retirement -
Allegation of committing irregularity in
respect of loan transactions happened
between 2005 to 2010 - Delay of eight
years
in
initiating
the
departmental
enquiry - From 2010 to 2018, regular
annual financial inspections of the Branch
were conducted, but the respondent-Bank
never took any step against the petitioner
on the basis of any alleged illegality -
Manual provide four years limitation to