# Vishwa Nath Lal Srivastava v. Inspector General (Registration), U.P. At Allahabad 390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 389
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-26
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishwa-nath-lal-srivastava-v-inspector-general-registration-u-p-at-allahabad-43845
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

5 All. Vishwa Nath Lal Srivastava Vs Inspector General (Registration), U.P. At Allahabad

389
ultimate object is to get atleast 3 candidates as prescribed by resolution who would be called for the
interview; against one post. The contention of the petitioners that they qualified in the screening
test is not correct. The screening test was only a step in aid for calling the candidates for interview
in the ratio of 1:8 and thereafter in the ratio of 1:3. The preliminary examination/screening test only
fixed the eligibility criteria. Merit was not being judged.

16. The action of the respondents in lowering the marks of the last candidate in Other
Backward Class category and bringing it down to 85 is not the constitutional mandate. Such scaling
down, as per the resolution dated 29.5.2004, cannot be invoked nor was the same adopted for this
examination. Once a ratio of 1:3 has been fixed, the respondents are required to call three
candidates from the merit list in each category for the number of posts advertised. Reservation at
this stage cannot be applied.

17. In the instant case 177 posts were advertised. Taking the ratio of 1:3, i.e., 3 candidates for
1 post, 531 candidates would be invited for the interview. As per the supplementary counter
affidavit dated 24.5.2016, the last candidate at Sl.No.531 secured 89 marks and 9 other candidates
had also secured the same marks, i.e., 89, therefore, the total number of candidates in the ratio of
1:3 would be 540, that would be the correct ratio bringing parity in each category without there
being any discrimination. The procedure that was adopted by the respondents, which is reflected in
paragraph 17 of their counter affidavit in Writ petition No.17868 of 2016 is not correct, inasmuch
as, the ratio for Other Backward Class category becomes 1:12, namely, 12 candidates are being
called for interview for one post, whereas, for the unreserved category and Scheduled Caste
category the ratio remains 1:3. Such increase in the number of candidates in the Other Backward
Class category, as indicated in the counter affidavit of the Commission, becomes not only arbitrary
but also discriminatory.

18. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are partly allowed. Since the interview was
postponed, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the Commission to prepare a merit list category
wise pursuant to the screening test and call the candidates in order of merit, in the ratio of 1:3, i.e.,
three candidates for one post.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ A No.- 17339 Of 1995

Vishwa Nath Lal Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
Inspector General (Registration), U.P. At Allahabad ...Respondent
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for Petitioner:
Pradeep Chandra, Km. Usha Kiran

Counsel for Respondent:
C.S.C.
.................................
Held:

Purchase of movable or immovable property by a Government servant in the name of self or
family member without prior knowledge or prior sanction of the appropriate authority
constitutes misconduct under Rules 22 and 24 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.

Mere intimation by sending letters under certificate of posting does not amount to compliance
with the requirement of "previous knowledge" or "previous sanction" as contemplated under Rule
24 of the Rules of 1956.

The "appropriate authority" for prior knowledge/sanction under Rule 24 is the State
Government, and not the District Registrar or any subordinate authority.

When the charged employee does not dispute foundational facts and no other conclusion is
possible, absence of oral enquiry does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings, particularly where no
prejudice is shown.

Violation of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1956 is a serious misconduct, justifying a major penalty, including
removal from service.

Disciplinary authority cannot disagree with the enquiry officer's findings on a charge without
recording reasons and without issuing notice, but where other serious charges are proved, the
punishment need not be interfered with.

Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, and where findings are based on evidence and
statutory rules, the High Court will not act as an appellate authority.

In view of proved misconduct, removal from service is neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.

Case Law discussed:

Shyam Bahadur v. U.P. State Food & Essential Commodities Corp. Ltd.
Writ Petition No. 798 of 2007

Mirja Barkat Ali v. Inspector General of Police, Allahabad & Ors.
(2002) 2 UPLBEC 1871

L.K. Jain v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
2014 (1) ADJ 319

State of U.P. v. Nand Kishore Shukla
AIR 1996 SC 1561

Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Bihari Mishra
5 All. Vishwa Nath Lal Srivastava Vs Inspector General (Registration), U.P. At Allahabad

391
(1998) 7 SCC 84

K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India
AIR 1984 SC 273

State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma
AIR 1996 SC 1669

Biecco Lawrie Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
(2009) 10 SCC 32

(Delivered by Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.1995, whereby he has been removed from
service on the charges of misconduct. The order, consequently, is under challenge in the present
writ petition.

2. Petitioner was posted as a registration clerk in the office of Deputy Registrar, Stamp and
Registration, Deoria. Certain unanimous complaints were received against him. It seems that
petitioner was transferred to Mirzapur from Deoria on 7.1.1993 and he was also relieved on
30.1.1993, but he failed to join at the transferred place. An order of suspension, consequently, came
to be passed against him and a charge sheet dated 28.4.1993 was issued, levelling following
charges:-

"(1) Petitioner had purchased land in the name of his wife in 1959, 1972 and 1973
without informing and obtaining prior permission of the competent authority and had failed to
submit reply to the letter dated 3.12.1992, whereby his explanation had been called rendering him
guilty of violating U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.

(2) Petitioner had purchased a car in 1987 in the name of his wife without intimation and
permission of the appointment authority, violating the Rules of 1956.

(3) Petitioner had been transferred under orders of Inspector General (Registrar) on
administrative ground from Deoria to Mirzapur on 7.1.1993, and the order of transfer was not
complied with, instead an application for grant of medical leave w.e.f. 6.3.1992 to 6.3.1993 was
moved without enclosing any medical certificate, and therefore, petitioner had failed to carry out
directions issued by the competent authority."

3. Petitioner denied the charges levelled vide his reply dated 30.6.1993 and various factual
averments were made in his defence. Assistant Inspector General (Registration) was appointed as
an enquiry officer, who held the enquiry and submitted his report. As per enquiry report following
findings were returned:-
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(i) In respect of charge no.(1)(a), which related to purchase of land in the year 1959, it
was observed that no permission was required as petitioner was not in service at that time.

(ii) In respect of charge no.1(b), which related to purchase of land in the name of his wife
in the year 1972 and 1973, enquiry officer found situation to be not clear, inasmuch as petitioner is
stated to have sent two letters seeking permission to purchase land, but it is not clear as to whether
any permission was granted or not.

(iii) In respect charge no.1(c), insofar as it referred to non submission of explanation
pursuant to letter dated 3.12.1992, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges
levelled.

(iv) In respect of charge no.2 regarding purchase of car in the name of petitioner's wife,
the enquiry officer found that petitioner had apparently sent information about purchase of car, but
it is not clear as to whether any permission was granted or not.

(v) In respect of charge no.3, the enquiry officer found that in view of the documents
produced, the charge was not proved as the petitioner had remained on leave.

4. A show cause notice thereafter was served upon the petitioner alongwith enquiry report on
1.6.1994, granting him an opportunity to submit his reply, as to why a major punishment be not
imposed upon him, but the same was not replied.

5. The disciplinary authority, in respect of allegation relating to purchase of land in the name
of petitioner's wife in the year 1959, proceeded to hold that there was no specific charge of
obtaining permission and the only requirement was of disclosure of such property at the time of
entry into service on 2.8.1961. The disciplinary authority found that there was no charge levelled
about non disclosure of this property, and as such, the charge levelled was held to be not proved. So
far as the charge of purchase of land in the name of his wife in 1972 is concerned, it was held that a
sale deed had been executed on 2.7.1972 and was registered in the office of Deputy Registrar
(Registration). The disciplinary authority noticed petitioner's defence that he had sent a letter under
posting certificate on 15.6.1972 to District Registrar, Gorakhpur, but mere sending of
communication was held to be not sufficient compliance of law since it had been sent directly to
the registrar. Disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that a prior permission was required,
which was missing, and therefore, the charge levelled was proved.

Similarly, in respect of purchase of land in 1973, petitioner was posted in the office of
Sub Registrar (Hata). The defence of intimation under posting certificate to the District Assistant
Registrar on 30.5.1973 was noticed, but it was again found that requirement of obtaining prior
permission from the appropriate authority was missing and mere sending of letter under posting
certificate was not sufficient. The charge, therefore, was held to be proved. The disciplinary
authority agreed with the conclusions of enquiry officer that petitioner has failed to submit his reply
though an explanation had been called from him on 3.2.1992, and the petitioner was found
5 All. Vishwa Nath Lal Srivastava Vs Inspector General (Registration), U.P. At Allahabad

393
negligent and careless in performing the duties. So far as purchase of car in 1987 in the name of
petitioner's wife is concerned, it was held that petitioner had purchased a car in the name of his
wife for a sum of Rs.17,500/- in respect of which no intimation was given to the appointment
authority. A finding has been returned that no permission of the appropriate authority had been
obtained for purchasing the car and the defence of sending letters directly to District Registrar
under posting certificate was not sufficient. The sources of fund disclosed by the petitioner was
also found to be doubtful. The vehicle was not purchased from any established and well reputed
trader, and therefore, permission of appropriate authority was mandatory before purchasing a car,
which was not obtained and petitioner was guilty of the charge levelled.

6. So far as the allegation with regard to petitioner's absence is concerned, also the disciplinary
authority found that no justifiable cause existed for petitioner's absence from duty and the petitioner
had failed to perform his duties. With these findings disciplinary authority found petitioner's
integrity to be doubtful and an order removing him from service has been passed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:-

"1. The respondent authorities failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner
before District Registrar, and the objection that petitioner should have initially approached through
Deputy Registrar is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as the petitioner had duly informed the authority
concerned.

2. The respondent authorities failed to consider that it is not a case where the petitioner
has not informed but a case where the petitioner has informed the authority through proper means
but as per the allegation appropriate authority has not been informed which is arbitrary, illegal and
against the provisions of law.

3. The respondent authorities failed to consider the fact that there had been no hiding of
any information by the petitioner at any point of time instead he had showed his clear and genuine
intention of informing the respondent authority.

4. The departmental proceedings had not been carried out in compliance of the principles
of natural justice as no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was awarded to the petitioner.

5. The major penalty imposed is too harsh and severe vis-a-vis the gravity of the charge
imposed as petitioner had acted in accordance with the law."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in
Shyam Bahadur vs. U.P. State Food & Essential Commodities Corp. Ltd. in Writ Petition No.798
of 2007, Mirja Barkat Ali vs. Inspector General of Police, Allahabad and others: (2002) 2 UPLBEC
1871 and L.K. Jain vs. Punjab National Bank and others: 2014 (1) ADJ 319.
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner and it has been contended that the order of
disciplinary authority suffers from no illegality so as to require interference by this Court. Learned
Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Nand
Kishore Shukla: 1996 AIR 1561.

10. Before proceeding to evaluate the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would
be appropriate to take note of rule 22 and 24 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1956') violation of which is alleged by the petitioner. Rule
22 and 24 of the Rules of 1956 is reproduced:-

"22. Lending and borrowing.- (1) No Government servant shall, except with the
previous sanction of the appropriate authority, lend money to any person at interest or in a manner
whereby return in money or in kind is charged or paid:

Provided that a Government servant may make an advance or pay to a private servant, or
give a loan of a small amount free of interest to a personal friend or relative.

[(2) No Government servant shall, save in the ordinary course of business with a bank,
Co-operative Society or a firm, or otherwise, place himself under pecuniary obligation to any
person within the local limits of his authority, nor shall he permit any member of his family, except
with the previous sanction of the appropriate authority, to enter into any such transactions:

Provided that a Government servant may accept a purely temporary loan not exceeding in
value the amount of his two months' basic pay free of interest, from a personal friend or relative or
operate a credit account with a bonafide tradesman.]

(3) Where a Government servant is appointed or transferred to a post of such a nature as
to involve in the breach of any of the provisions of sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), he shall forthwith
report the circumstances to the appropriate authority, and shall thereafter act in accordance with
such orders as may be passed by the appropriate authority.

(4) The appropriate authority in the case of Government servants who are Gazetted
Officers shall be the Government and in other case, the Head of the office.]

"24. Movable, immovable and valuable property.- (1) No Government servant shall
except with the previous knowledge of the appropriate authority, acquire or dispose of any
immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise, either in his own name or
in the name of any member of his family;

Provided that any such transaction conducted otherwise than through a regular and
reputed dealer require the previous sanction of the appropriate authority.
5 All. Vishwa Nath Lal Srivastava Vs Inspector General (Registration), U.P. At Allahabad

395

(2) A Government servant who enters into any transaction concerning any movable
property exceeding in value, the amount of his pay for one month or rupees one thousand,
whichever is less, whether by way of purchaser, sale or otherwise, shall forthwith report such
transaction to the appropriate authority;

Provided that no government servant shall enter into any such transaction except with or
through a reputed dealer or agent of standing or with the appropriate authority.

(3) At the time of first appointment and thereafter at intervals of five years, every
government servant shall make to the appointing authority through the usual channel, a declaration
of all immovable property owned, acquired or inherited by him or held by him on lease or
mortgage and of shares and other investments, which may, from time to time be held or acquired by
him or by his wife or by any member of his family living with, or in any way dependent upon him
such declaration should state the full particulars of the property, shares and other investment.

(4) The appropriate authority may, at any times by general special order, require a
government servant to submit within a period specified in the order a full and complete statement
of such movable or immovable property held or acquired by him or by any member of his family as
may be specified in the order a full and complete statement of such movable or immovable
property held or acquired by him or by any member of his family as may be specified in the order.
Such statement shall, if so required by the appropriate authority, including details of the means by
which or the source from which such property was acquired.

(5) The appropriate authority-

(a) In the case of a government servant belonging to the State service, shall for purpose of
sub-rules (1) and (4), be the Government and for sub-rule (2), the Head of the Department.

(b) in the case of other government servants for the purposes of sub-rules (1) to (4) shall
be the Head of the Department."

11. The records available clearly indicate that charges of purchase of immovable or movable
property had been levelled against the petitioner without previous knowledge of the appropriate
authority. Appropriate authority under sub-rule (5) of rule 24 for a government servant belonging to
state service is the State Government, and only in respect of of sub-rule (2) the appropriate
authority would be head of department. Government servant as well as members of his family has
been defined under rule 2(b) and (c) of the Rules of 1956, which reads as under:-

"2. Definitions.-

(b) "Government servant" means a person appointed to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Explanation.- A Government servant whose services are placed at the disposal of a
company, a corporation, an organization, a local authority, the Central Government or the
Government of another State by the U.P. Government, shall, for the purposes of these rules, be
deemed to be a Government servant notwithstanding that his salary is drawn from a source other
than the Consolidated Fund of Uttar Pradesh.

(c) "member of the family" in relation to a Government servant, includes-

(I) the wife, son, step-son, unmarried daughter, or unmarried step-daughter of such
Government servant, whether residing with him or not, and, in relation to a Government servant,
who is a woman, the husband, son, step-sons, unmarried daughter or unmarried step-daughters
dependent on her, residing with her or not, and

(ii) any other person related, whether by blood or by marriage, to the Government servant
or to such Government servant's wife or her husband, and wholly dependent on such Government
servant,

but does not include a wife or husband legally separated from the Government servant or
a son, step-son, unmarried daughter or unmarried step-daughter, who is no longer, in any way,
dependent upon him or her, or of whose custody the Government servant has been deprived by
law."

12. Petitioner being a registration clerk in the office of Deputy Registrar was a "government
servant" belonging to state service and the Rules of 1956 are clear that for purchase of any
immovable property by way of sale in his name, or in the name of member of his family, previous
knowledge of the State Government was mandatory and where such transaction was conducted
otherwise than through a reputed dealer, it required the previous sanction of the appropriate
authority. Similarly, in respect of purchase of movable property, exceeding in value the amount of
pay for one month, otherwise than through a reputed dealer or agent, it must be reported to the
appropriate authority.

13. The charge levelled against the petitioner, in specific terms, is of violating the Rules of
1956, as immovable property in the name of petitioner's wife had been purchased without obtaining
prior sanction of the appropriate authority. So far as the purchase of land in the year 1959 is
concerned, both the the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority have rightly held that such charge
was not made out, as petitioner was not a government servant then.

14. Petitioner in his reply, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, had
submitted as under:-
5 All. Vishwa Nath Lal Srivastava Vs Inspector General (Registration), U.P. At Allahabad

397

प्राथी ने सन् 1972 और 73 में भूलम कय करने के पूिव तत्कालीन जजला ननबन्धक महोदय को ददनांक 15-8-72 एिं
ददनोंक 30-5-73 को डाक से अन मनत प्राप्त करने के ललए प्राथवना पत्र ददया था। साक्ष्य स्िरूप प्राथवना पत्र की छाया प्रनत संलग्न है
तथा डाक की रसीद की छाया प्रनत भी संलग्न है।

ददनॉक 3-12-92 द्िारा मोंगे गये स्पष्टीकरण के उत्तर में विलम्ब होने के सन्दभव में प्राथी का यह ननिेदन है फक प्राथी
उक्त स्पष्टीकरण हेत साक्ष्य इकट्ठा कर रहा था और प्राथी िाद में तबबयत भी खराब हो गई जजसके कारण जिाब देने में विलम्ब हो
गया।

15. Petitioner in his reply also tried to explain that such properties were purchased from the
funds provided by other relatives. All such issues are not relevant inasmuch as the charge levelled
against the petitioner was that petitioner had purchased movable and immovable property without
obtaining departmental permission and without the knowledge of the competent authority. On this
aspect, the only submission made by the petitioner is that he had sought permission of the then
District Registrar vide letters sent under posting certificate dated 15.8.1972 and 30.6.1973. This
Court has examined the report of enquiry officer, which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ
petition. According to the enquiry officer, sending of letters under posting certificate has been
established by the petitioner, but it is not clear as to whether any permission was granted or not,
and therefore, the charges cannot be said to be either proved or not proved. Much can be said about
understanding of enquiry officer about requirement of law being met by mere sending of letters
under certificate of posting (UPC), but as sufficient time has already lapsed and it is not clear as to
whether the enquiry officer is still in service or not, therefore, no comments are being made on this
aspect of the matter. The disciplinary authority nevertheless has rightly returned a finding that the
charges were made out against the petitioner of illegally purchasing land as mere sending of letters
to the District Registrar would not amount to compliance of provisions of the Rules of 1956.
Similarly, in respect of charges relating to purchase of car the enquiry officer has treated sending of
information vide letter under posting certificate to be proved, but as per him it is not clear as to
whether permission has been granted or not. The disciplinary authority nevertheless has again
returned a finding that the vehicle had not been purchased from any reputed dealer and prior
permission or knowledge of appropriate authority, which was required, was not even claimed to be
existing.

16. In view of the charge levelled, petitioner had to demonstrate that any previous sanction of
the appropriate authority had been obtained before purchasing of land in the name of petitioner's
wife. In the reply to the charge sheet, it is not even claimed that any such prior permission had been
obtained. What was alleged was mere sending of letters under posting certificate to the District
Registrar, Gorakhpur. Even if the letter is treated to have been sent to the District Registrar,
Gorakhpur, it would not meet the requirement of law inasmuch as previous knowledge of the
appropriate authority would mean previous knowledge of the State Government and not of the
District Assistant Registrar in terms of rule 24 of the Rules of 1956. Admittedly, no previous
sanction existed for purchase of such land. Similarly, in respect of purchase of car, which is a
movable property, the transaction was not even claimed to have been reported to the appropriate
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority i.e. State Government. No prior sanction was otherwise claimed to have existed.
The charges, therefore, were clearly made out against the petitioner.

17. This Court finds that the Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Nand Kishore Shukla
(supra) had specifically dealt with rule 24 of the Rules of 1956 in following words in para
6:-

"6. A reading thereof clearly indicates that when a Government servant enters
into transaction of movable or immovable property the procedure indicated in the service
rules therein, i.e., no Government servant shall except with the previous knowledge of the
appropriate authority acquire or dispose of and immovable property by lease, mortgage,
purchase, sale gift or otherwise, either in his own name or in the name of any member of
his family shall be followed. Under the proviso any transaction conducted otherwise than
through a regular and reputed dealer requires the previous sanction of the appropriate
authority. This is an admitted position. The contention of Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned
senior counsel for respondent, is that in view of the finding given by the enquiry officer
that 5 charges have been held proved and in view of the fact that charges 1, 3, 4 and 5
could not be gone into due to non-availment of opportunity on the part of the respondent it
would not be predicated with certainty that the disciplinary authority would have passed
the order of removal from service on the basis of charge 2 alone."

18. The provision contained under rule 22 and 24 have vital significance for ensuring
transparency and efficient functioning of the State itself. The provision is intended to
maintain a check on acquisition of property by the employees of the State Govt. and it is
incumbent upon every public servant to scrupulously adhere to such provisions, as only
then a watch could be kept against illegal accumulation of immovable and movable
property. The charge against the petitioner was serious and from the reply submitted by the
petitioner itself, it was substantially clear that the charged employee had not even claimed
in his reply that he had complied with the requirement of law.

19. So far as the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner of defect in
holding of the enquiry on account of lack of oral enquiry is concerned, this Court finds that
in view of the nature of charges levelled as well as reply submitted, there apparently was
no need of oral enquiry in the matter. The petitioner had to demonstrate that he had
complied with rule 24 of the Rules of 1956. Despite a specific charge of violation thereof,
petitioner has not stated in his reply that he had complied with requirement of rule 24 i.e.
of previous knowledge or previous sanction of the appropriate authority i.e. State
Government. An oral enquiry in the matter would not change the scenario, nor any
prejudice is shown to be caused to the petitioner on such count, as it would not have
changed the consequences and no other conclusion was possible.

20. The judgment, which has been relied upon by the petitioner, i.e. Shyam Sundar
(supra), this Court finds that the ratio laid down therein is of no help to the petitioner.
5 All. Vishwa Nath Lal Srivastava Vs Inspector General (Registration), U.P. At Allahabad

399
Following observations made in para 19 of the judgment aptly applies to the facts of the
present case:-

"19. The Court may hasten to add that the above mentioned law is subject to
certain exception. When the facts are admitted, or no real prejudice has been caused to
employee, or no other conclusion is possible, in such situation, the order shall not be
vitiated. Reference may be made to the some of the decision of Supreme Court in
K.L.Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India, AIR 1984 SC 273; State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K.
Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669 and Biecco Lawrie Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal &
Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 32. "

21. Once the allegation of breach of rule 24 of the Rules of 1956 is established, an act
of misconduct clearly is made out. Doubting the integrity of employee and the punishment
awarded, in such circumstances, cannot be termed to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

22. The judgments in Mirja Barkat Ali (supra) and L.K. Jai (supra) have no
applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the findings
already returned above.

23. The other charges levelled against the petitioner of failing to submit reply to the
explanation called has also been found proved by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary
authority. This Court has no reason to take a contrary view.

24. So far as the failure on part of the petitioner to join despite transfer is concerned,
this court finds that such charge has not been found to be proved by the enquiry officer, but
the disciplinary authority without recording reasons for disagreement with such findings,
and without notice in respect thereof, has proceeded to treat the charge as proved, which is
not in accordance with the principles of law laid down in Punjab National Bank and others
vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra: (1998) 7 SCC 84, and therefore, cannot be accepted. Nevertheless
charge nos.1 and 2 of purchasing movable and immovable property in violation of
mandatory requirement of rule 24 of the Rules of 1956, as well as of failing to reply to the
explanation sought, is made out, and as such, the order of punishment requires no
interference. It appears that after complaint was received against the petitioner and his
explanation was sought, petitioner failed to appear and also failed to submit reply, or to
join pursuant to order of transfer, whereafter he was placed under suspension and
ultimately dismissed.

25. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. However, keeping in view that under an
interim order petitioner continued to work and he has since died during pendency of writ
petition, the benefits of salary etc. already extended to the petitioner shall not be
recovered.

26. No order is passed as to costs.
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Writ A No.- 19776 Of 2016

Smt. Sonam Shri ...Petitioner
Versus
Canara Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Manoj Kumar

Counsel for Respondents:
Siddharth

Present writ was filed for quashing the termination order dated 14.08.2015 as well as appellate order dated
08.12.2015 and for quashing of the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner Smt.
Sonam Shri joined as Probationary Agriculture Extension Officer in Canara Bank at Service Training Centre,
Banglore on 22.04.2013. Her training was completed on 11.05.2013 and she was allotted Lucknow Circle (AF
& PS Section). She joined her services on Probation for two years on 13.05.2013 and worked there till
10.11.2013. Due to serious health hazard, the petitioner sought leave on this ground and sent the application
via e-mail on 16.03.2015. The office of the respondent no. 2 by a letter dated 12.05.2015 sent a notice
"absence from duties" mentioning therein her previous leave applications and her unauthorized absence
without permission/sanction of any leave and proceeding on leave unauthorizedly without any sanction or
permission of leave and instructed her to report back for duty.

Court held that The principles of natural justice was applied with all care and caution by the respondents while
passing the impugned orders against the petitioner. She was issued notice for her absence from duties
mentioning therein all sequence of the events. The petitioner was on probation and in terms of her
appointment letter, the service agreement and the Regulation of 1979 her services was dispensed with while
working as a Probationary Officer.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon. Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the termination order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the
appellate order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the respondent no. 1 and for quashing of the recovery
proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed that a writ in the nature
of mandamus be issued directing and commanding the respondent Bank to reinstate the petitioner.