# Yogesh Kumar Sharma v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 653
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-07
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5735 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogesh-kumar-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53744
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Aditya Bhushan Singhal, C.S.C., Suresh
Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether initiation of departmental proceedings
against a Superintending Engineer of U.P. Jal
Nigam (Urban), on the basis of approval granted
by the Board of Directors instead of the
Governor, is legally valid.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Post-Retirement Inquiry - Rule 351-A of
Civil Services Regulations - Competent
Authority
-
Board
of
Directors
-
Delegation of Power - Validity - U.P. Jal
Nigam (Urban) - Gratuity and Leave
Encashment.
Held :
Petitioner, a retired Superintending Engineer of
U.P.
Jal
Nigam
(Urban).
Prabandh
Nideshak/Nideshak
Mandal,
in
terms
of
amended Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the U.P. Sarkari
Karmchari Acharan Niyamavali, 1956, with the
permission of the Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam
(Urban), Lucknow, took a decision to initiate
inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 351(A)
of the C.S.R. The petitioner argued that the
appropriate authority to grant such permission
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was the Hon'ble Governor and that it could not
be delegated to the Board of Directors of U.P.
Jal Nigam. The issue being who is the
appropriate authority to grant sanction to
initiate proceedings under Section 351(A) of the
C.S.R., it was noted that the Chairman, U.P. Jal
Nigam, had issued an Office Memo dated
3.2.2003, whereby the decision taken by the
Board of Directors in its 138th meeting dated
22.1.2003 was communicated, adopting the
provisions of the U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, with the
amendment that the words "Governor" or "State
Government" be read as "Nigam/Board of
Directors." The aforesaid Office Memo dated
3.2.2003 still holds good. There was no legal
error in initiating proceedings against the
petitioner after retirement, since the decision of
the Board of Directors was duly taken under the
aforesaid provisions. Writ petition dismissed.
(Paras 24-29) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
None.

List of Acts

## Text

8 All. Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
653

25. Although learned counsel for
petitioner has submitted that once the
impugned punishment order has been
quashed,
he
would
be
entitled
for
backwages but this Court is disinclined to
grant such relief, particularly in view of the
fact that the inquiry report has specifically
been upheld against the petitioner by the
Tribunal with such findings having attained
finality and it is only on a technical aspect
that this petition is being allowed. Since the
findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are
not being interfered with, this Court does
not find any occasion to grant backwages.

26. Ordinarily, in such circumstances,
the dispute is required to be remitted for
consideration afresh but considering the
fact that charge sheet pertains to the year
1976 and the petitioner in the meantime has
also passed away, this Court does not find
any occasion to remit the matter for
consideration afresh.

27. Writ-A No.5314 of 2002 has been
filed seeking a direction to opposite parties
to treat petitioner in continued service and
pay all the service benefits including
selection grade and other revised pay scales
as revised from time to time.

28. In view of the fact that impugned
order of removal of petitioner stands
quashed, the consequential benefits as
sought for in subsequent Writ-A No.5314
of 2002 are also allowed to the petitioner.

29. Resultantly, both the petitions
succeed and are allowed. Further writ in
the
nature
of
mandamus
is
issued
commanding the opposite parties to treat
petitioner in regular service throughout
with
consequential
service
benefits
financially being provided to him on a
notional basis.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 653
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 5735 of 2025

Yogesh Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, Sharad Rastogi,
Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Aditya Bhushan Singhal, C.S.C., Suresh
Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether initiation of departmental proceedings
against a Superintending Engineer of U.P. Jal
Nigam (Urban), on the basis of approval granted
by the Board of Directors instead of the
Governor, is legally valid.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Post-Retirement Inquiry - Rule 351-A of
Civil Services Regulations - Competent
Authority
-
Board
of
Directors
-
Delegation of Power - Validity - U.P. Jal
Nigam (Urban) - Gratuity and Leave
Encashment.
Held :
Petitioner, a retired Superintending Engineer of
U.P.
Jal
Nigam
(Urban).
Prabandh
Nideshak/Nideshak
Mandal,
in
terms
of
amended Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the U.P. Sarkari
Karmchari Acharan Niyamavali, 1956, with the
permission of the Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam
(Urban), Lucknow, took a decision to initiate
inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 351(A)
of the C.S.R. The petitioner argued that the
appropriate authority to grant such permission
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was the Hon'ble Governor and that it could not
be delegated to the Board of Directors of U.P.
Jal Nigam. The issue being who is the
appropriate authority to grant sanction to
initiate proceedings under Section 351(A) of the
C.S.R., it was noted that the Chairman, U.P. Jal
Nigam, had issued an Office Memo dated
3.2.2003, whereby the decision taken by the
Board of Directors in its 138th meeting dated
22.1.2003 was communicated, adopting the
provisions of the U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, with the
amendment that the words "Governor" or "State
Government" be read as "Nigam/Board of
Directors." The aforesaid Office Memo dated
3.2.2003 still holds good. There was no legal
error in initiating proceedings against the
petitioner after retirement, since the decision of
the Board of Directors was duly taken under the
aforesaid provisions. Writ petition dismissed.
(Paras 24-29) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
None.

List of Acts
1. Civil Services Regulations, Rule 351-A;
2. U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999.

List of Keywords
Service Law; Rule 351-A; Board of Directors;
Delegation of Power; Post-Retirement Inquiry;
U.P.
Jal
Nigam
(Urban);
Disciplinary
Proceedings;
Gratuity;
Leave
Encashment;
Sanction.

CASE ARISING FROM
Challenge to charge-sheet dated 23.08.2024
and departmental proceedings initiated under
Rule 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations
after retirement.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Sri Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate; assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar
Upadhyay.

Advs For Respondents: Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
Additional Advocate General; assisted by Sri
Aditya Bhushan Singhal; C.S.C.; and Sri Suresh
Singh.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare,learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep
Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri M.C.Chaturvedi, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned
counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner was initially appointed as
Junior Engineer (Civil) in 1984 in U.P Jal
Nigam.

3.
Petitioner
was
promoted
as
Assistant Engineer in the year 2003 and
was accommodated as Executive Engineer
in April 2016.Later on, he was accorded
promotion on the post of Superintending
Engineer on 3.3.2023 and he retired on
30.4.2023 as Superintending Engineer.

4. On 30.6.2024, an occurrence took
place and a recently constructed water tank
at Krishna Vihar, Colony, Mathura having
a capacity of 2500 Litres fell down, which
resulted into death of two women and 11
persons were injured also.

5. The aforesaid occurrence was taken
note of and an inquiry was conducted by a
four member committee and its report
dated 24.7.2024 was submitted and on
basis
of
its
outcome,
disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner after his retirement since it was
found that petitioner was incharge and was
looking after the construction of water tank
between 7. 10.2020 to 8.6.2022 and at least
45% of work was completed during his
tenure though according to the petitioner,
only 25% of work was done under his
tenure which includes construction of Top
Dome (Top Cover), Pipe Fitting & Fixture,
8 All. Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
655
Painting, Testing and Commissioning.
Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated
against other employees also.

6. A decision was also taken to lodge
an F.I.R and accordingly an F.I.R was also
lodged on 1.7.2024 under Sections 304 and
338
of
I.P.C.
against
construction
companies and unnamed officials.

7. Petitioner was already retired
therefore, Prabandh Nideshak/ Nideshak
Mandal in terms of amended Rules 3(1)
and 3(2) of U.P. Sarkari Karmchari
Acharan
Niyamavali-1956,
with
a
permission of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam
(Urban) Lucknow took a decision to initiate
inquiry against the petitioner, under Rule
351 (a) of CCS Rules and an Inquiry
Officer
was
appointed.
This
communication was in anticipation of
permission from Nideshak Mandal of U.P.
Jal
Nigam
(Urban)
Lucknow).
For
reference
order
dated
9.8.2024
is
reproduced hereinafter:

"तत्कालीन कायाटलय अलिशासी अलभयंता, ड्रेनेज
एवं सीवरेज इकाई/अलतररक्त लनमाटण इकाई, मथुरा में अलिशासी
अलभयंता के पद पर तैनाती के दौरान श्री योगेश कुमार शमाट,
तत्कालीन अलिशासी अलभयंता/ वतटमान में सेवालनवृत्त अिीक्षण
अलभयंता द्वारा दालयत्वों का लनष्ठापूवटक लनवटहन न करने, अमृत
कायटक्रम के अन्तगटत मथुरा पेयजल पुनगटठन योजना थ्रू गोकुल बैराज
पार्ट-1 के लनमाटण कायों में लापरवाही बरते जाने के फलस्वरूप
कृष्प्णा लवहार कॉलोनी, मथुरा में लनलमटत अवर जलाशय, क्षमता
2500 लकली0/20 मीर्र स्र्ेलजंग के लदनांक 30.06.2024 को
क्षलतग्रस्त होकर लगर जाने, कायों की गुणवता प्रथम दृष्टया
अिोमानक होने, अिीनस्थों पर लशलथल लनयंत्रण रखने, कायों का
सही ढंग से लक्रयान्वयन / लनरीक्षण न करने लवभाग को आलथटक क्षलत
पहुंचाने, लवभाग की िलव िूलमल करने एवं उ०प्र० सरकारी कमटचारी
आचरण लनयमावली-1956 (यथासंशोलित) के लनयम-3(1) एवं
3(2) में लनलहत प्रालविानों का उल्लंघन करने आलद से संबंलित
प्रलतकूल तथ्यों के प्रकाश में आने एवं प्रथम दृष्ट्या दोषी पाये जाने के
फलस्वरूप अध्यक्ष, उ०प्र० जल लनगम (नगरीय) के
अनुमोदनोपरान्त लनदेशक मण्डल उ०प्र० जल लनगम (नगरीय) की
स्वीकृलत की प्रत्याशा में श्री योगेश कुमार शमाट, सेवालनवृत्त अिीक्षण
अलभयंता के लवरूद्ध एतद् द्वारा के लनयम-351 (ए) के अिीन
लवभागीय कायटवाही संलस्थत करते हुए आरोपों की जांच हेतु मुख्य
अलभयंता (कानपुर क्षेत्र) उ०प्र० जल लनगम (नगरीय), कानपुर को
पदेन जांच अलिकारी लनयुक्त लकया जाता है।

मुख्य अलभयंता (कानपुर क्षेत्र) उ०प्र० जल लनगम
(नगरीय), कानपुर व पदेन जांच अलिकारी प्रकरण की अनुशासलनक
जांच कायटवाही पूणटकर, जांच आख्या लवलम्बतम् लदनांक
10.09.2024 तक प्रस्तुत करेंगे।"

8. In the aforesaid circumstances a
charge-sheet dated 23.8.2001 was served
upon the petitioner on 2 charges. For
reference details of Charges No.1 and 2 are
reproduced hereinafter:

"आरोप संख्या-1

अमृत कायटक्रम के अन्तगटत मथुरा पेयजल पुनटगठन
योजना थ्रो गोकुल बैराज पार्ट-1 के अन्तगटत पेयजल से सम्बलन्ित
योजना के प्राक्कलन की स्वीकृलत शासनादेश संख्या
285/2018/794/नौ-5-2018-30बजर्/2017
लदनांक
02.08.2018 के अनुसार योजना की स्वीकृत लागत रू०
3864.12 लाख है। स्वीकृत योजना में मुख्यतः लनम्नलललखत कायट
प्रस्तालवत थेः-

लवतरण प्रणाली 74.434 लक०मी०

भूलमगत जलाशय 3700 लक०ली० एवं 600
लक०ली० - 2 नग

ओवर हैड र्ेंक 2500 लक०ली० एवं 1650
लक०ली० -2 नग

फीडर मेन- 3880 मी०

राइलजंग मेन- 100 मी०

पेयजल गृह संयोजन- 8835 नग
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

अमृत कायटक्रम के अन्तगटत मथुरा पेयजल पुनटगठन
योजना थ्रो गोकुल बैराज पार्ट-1 से संबंलित प्रस्तालवत कायों को
पूणट कराने हेतु अनुबन्ि संख्या-08/जी.एम.-डी.एस.यू./18-19
के अिीन मैससट एस.एम. कन्स्रक्शन, 109, अदन बाग, दयाल
बाग, आगरा (जे.वी.) मैससट बनवारी लाल, आगरा (जे.वी.) मैससट
लत्रलोक लसंह रावत, गााँव दोब, पोस्र् नौल (मासी), अल्मोड़ा,
उत्तराखण्ड को अनुबलन्ित लकया गया, लजसके सापेक्ष कायट प्रारम्भ
करने की लतलथ 25.01.2019 एवं कायट समालि की लतलथ
24.04.2021 लनिाटररत की गयी। लनिाटररत समयान्तगटत कायट पूणट
न हो पाने के फलस्वरूप लदनांक 28.02.2022 तक की
समयवृलद्ध प्रदान करते हुये मथुरा नगर में योजनान्तगटत लवतरण
प्रणाली -74.434 लक०मी०, भूलमगत जलाशय 3700 लक०ली०
एवं 600 लक०ली० -2 नग, उच्च जलाशय 2500 लक०ली० एवं
1650 लक०ली० -2 नग, फीडर मेन -3880 मी०, राइलजंग मेन
-50 मी० एवं पेयजल गृह संयोजन -11238 नग से संबंलित
लनमाटण कायट लदनांक 30.11.2021 तक पूणट कराये गये।

उपयुटक्त
अनुबन्ि
संख्या
08/जी.एम.
डी.एस.यू./18-19 के अन्तगटत लवतरण प्रणाली, भूलमगत
जलाशय, उच्च जलाशय, फीडर मेन, राइलजंग मैन पेयजल गृह
संयोजन एवं तत्सम्बन्िी कायट आपके लनयंत्रण में उक्त अनुबलन्ित
फमों के माध्यम से लदनांक 30.11.2021 तक तथा 03 माह के
रायल रन अवलि सलहत 28.02.2022 तक पूणट कराये गये।
लदनांक 30.06.2024 को सांय 6 बजे के आस-पास कृष्प्णा
लवहार कॉलोनी में उक्त लनलमटत अवर जलाशय क्षमता 2500
लक०ली०/20 मीर्र स्र्ेलजंग क्षलतग्रस्त होकर लगर पड़ी, लजसके
फलस्वरूप उच्च जलाशय के पररसर के आस-पास लनवास कर रहे
15 व्यलक्त घायल हो गये, लजनमें से 02 व्यलक्तयों की मृत्यु हो गयी।
उक्त घर्ना के कारण जल संयोजन से संबंलित उपभोक्ताओं की
पेयजल आपूलतट बन्द हो गई। इस प्रकार स्वीकृत योजना / अनुबन्ि
में लनिाटररत शतों के अनुसार प्रस्तालवत कायों को लवलशलष्टयों के
अनुसार न कराते हुये गैर तकनीकी ढंग से लनमाटण कायट कराये जाने
के फलस्वरूप उक्त दुघटर्ना घलर्त होने से जनहालन हुयी और योजना
पर लकया गया व्यय रू0 2,09,75,164.00 लनष्प्फल हुआ।
योजना का पूणट लाभ आम जनमानस को नहीं लमल सका, लजस हेतु
आप उत्तरदायी है।

पठनीय साक्ष्य :-

उक्त आरोप के समथटन में खण्ड कायाटलय द्वारा
उपलब्ि करायी गयी ररपोर्ट लदनांक 30.06.2024 एवं पत्रांक549, गोकुल बैराज पार्ट-1/01 लदनांक 30.06.2024 द्वारा
प्रभारी अलिकारी, कोतवाली, मथुरा में दजट करायी गयी
एफ०आई०आर० संख्या-0439 लदनांक 01.07.2024 की
प्रलत, अनुबन्ि संख्या-08/जी.एम.-डी.एस.यू./18-19, इसमें
उलल्ललखत लसलवल लनमाटण की तकनीकी लवलशलष्टयों की पठनीय प्रलत
संलग्न है।

आरोप संख्या-2

प्रकरण में लजलालिकारी, मथुरा के पत्रांक1248/ओ०एस०डी०/2024 लदनांक 25.07.2024 द्वारा
उपलब्ि करायी गयी जांच आख्या के अनुसार स्थलीय लनरीक्षण के
समय यह पाया गया लक लनलमटत उपयुटक्त उच्च जलाशय में र्ेलस्र्ंग के
समय से ही लीकेज था, जो हस्तान्तरण के उपरान्त तथा उच्च
जलाशय के िराशायी होने तक जारी रहा। लीकेज का पानी उच्च
जलाशय पररसर में एक स्थान पर एकलत्रत होता रहा, लजसके
लनकासी की समुलचत व्यवस्था नहीं की गयी। प्रथम दृष्ट््‌या ऐसा
पररललक्षत हुआ है लक लबयररंग कैपेलसर्ी प्रभालवत होने के कारण
फाउडेशन सेर्लमेन्र् हुआ और उच्च जलाशय िराशायी हो गया।
जांच सलमलत की तकनीकी ररपोर्ट प्राि होने पर कराये गये लनमाटण
कायों की गुणता एवं अन्य तकनीकी पहलुओं पर लस्थलत स्पष्ट हो
सकेगी।

उक्तानुसार अपने कतटव्यों एवं दालयत्वों का अनुपालन
न करने, योजना के स्वीकृत/अनुबलन्ित कायों हेतु लनिाटररत
लवलशलष्टयों के अनुसार गुणतापरक कायट न कराने, लनमाटण कायट में
लापरवाही बरते जाने के फलस्वरूप कृष्प्णा लवहार कॉलोनी, मथुरा में
लनलमटत 2500 लकली/20 मीर्र स्र्ेलजंग क्षमता के अवर जलाशय
के लदनांक 30.06.2024 को क्षलतग्रस्त होकर लगर जाने, कायों
की गुणता प्रथम दृष्टया अिोमानक होने, अिीनस्थों पर लशलथल
लनयंत्रण रखने, कायों का सही ढंग से लक्रयान्वयन/लनरीक्षण न करने
एवं लवभाग की िलव िूलमल करने हेतु आप उत्तरदायी हैं।

पठनीय साक्ष्येंः-

उक्त आरोपों के समथटन में अनुबन्ि में उलल्ललखत
लसलवल लनमाटण की तकनीकी लवलशलष्टयों की पठनीय प्रलत एवं
लजलालिकारी, मथुरा के पत्रांक-1248/ओ०एस०डी०/2024
8 All. Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
657
लदनांक 25.07.2024 द्वारा उपलब्ि करायी गयी जांच सलमलत
की आख्या की पठनीय प्रलत संलग्न हैं।

अतः सी०एस०आर० के लनयम-351 (ए) के
अिीन आपसे अपेक्षा की जाती है लक आप इस पत्र प्रालि से 15
लदन के अन्दर अपने बचाव के पक्ष में उक्त आरोप पर लललखत
स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत करें। यलद उक्त लनिाटररत अवलि के अन्दर आपका
स्पष्टीकरण प्राि नहीं होता है, तो यह समझा जायेगा लक आपको
कुि नहीं कहना है एवं तद्नुसार ही अलन्तम आदेश पाररत कर लदये
जायेंगे।

आपसे यह भी अपेक्षा की जाती है लक यलद आप
अपने बचाव पक्ष में कोई गवाह प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं अथवा लकसी
साक्ष्य का प्रलत परीक्षण करना चाहते हैं तो ऐसे गवाह का नाम, पता
व उसके द्वारा लकये जाने वाले सम्भालवत बयान के संलक्षि लववरण
सलहत ललखें। यलद आप व्यलक्तगत सुनवाई का अवसर चाहते हैं, तो
समय लनलश्चत करके अिोहस्ताक्षरी को सूलचत करें।"

9. In the present Writ Petition, the
petitioner has challenged above referred
charge-sheet
and
further
proceedings,
mainly on a ground that a decision to
initiate inquiry after retirement was without
following due process as required under
Rule 351 (a) of the CCS Rules.

10. Petitioner is also aggrieved that
gratuity and leave encashment was illegally
withheld being against the provisions of
law.

11.
The
permission
to
initiate
departmental
proceedings
vide
Office
Memo dated 9.8.2024 is not under
challenge.

12. Court also takes note of para 24
of Rejoinder Affidavit that, it is not the
case that petitioner was not aware about
the
aforesaid
Office
Memo
dated
9.8.2024, when present Writ Petition was
filed nor any prayer was made to amend
the prayers.

13. Sri Ashok Khare, learner Senior
Counsel has argued at length that procedure
to initiate departmental inquiry, after
petitioner's retirement was illegal. The
appropriate
authority
to
grant
such
permission was the Hon'ble Governor and
it could not be delegated to the Board of
Directors of U.P. Jal Nigam.

14. Learned Senior Counsel also
submitted that the Office Memo dated
9.8.2024 was placed before the Board of
Directors for consideration. The Board in
its meeting dated 22.10.2024, delegation
was objected and it was directed to take a
fresh opinion from the State. Details of
relevant part of agenda and decision are
mentioned hereinafter:

07.10
श्री योगेश कुमार शमाट,
सेवालनवृत्त
अिीक्षण
अलभयन्ता के लवरूद्ध
सी०एस०आर०
के
लनयम-351(ए)
के
अन्तगटत अध्यक्ष उ०प्र०
जल लनगम (नगरीय)
द्वारा प्रदान की गयी
अनुमलत के अनुक्रम में
संलस्थत
लवभागीय
अनुशासलनक कायटवाही
पर
औपचाररक
अनुमोदन/कायोत्तर
स्वीकृत हेतु एजेण्डा
नोर्।
इस लबन्दु पर चचाट के
दौरान लनदेशक मण्डल के
समक्ष यह तथ्य रखा गया
लक सी०एस०आर० के
लनयम-351(ए)
के
अिीन
सेवालनवृत्त
लवभागीय कालमटकों के
लवरूद्ध कायटवाही लकये
जाने
हेतु
महामलहम
राज्यपाल से अनुमलत प्राि
लकये जाने का लनयम है।
यह तकट लदया गया लक
लनदेशक मण्डल द्वारा इस
सम्बन्ि में पूवट में जो
लनणटय ललया गया है लक
इस हेतु लनगम लनदेशक
मण्डल सक्षम होगा, लवलि
अनुरूप नहीं है। जल
लनगम
(नगरीय)
की
लवलशष्ट
प्रालस्थलत
के
दृलष्टगत लक यहां के
कालमटकों की पेंशन रेजरी
से नहीं प्राि होती है।
प्रथम दृष्टया यह तकट ग्राह्य
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
नहीं माना जा सकता है
लफर भी इस सम्बन्ि में
लनदेशक मण्डल द्वारा
लनणटय ललया गया लक इस
लस्थलत का एक बार पुनः
लवलिक परीक्षण कराते हुए
शासन का अलभमत प्राि
कर ललया जाये।

15. Learned Senior Counsel further
argued that once sanction to initiate
proceedings
was
itself
vitiated,
consequently the charge-sheet becomes
void-ab-initio.

16. Learned Senior Counsel also stated
that there is no adverse order against the
petitioner, therefore, to withhold gratuity
and leave encashment amount is also
illegal.

17. Learned Senior Counsel also stated
that construction of Water Tank was almost
complete when the petitioner has joined as
only 25% work was left.

18. Per contra, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned Additional Advocate General has
referred following paragraphs of counter
affidavit that due process was followed by
making Office Memorandum power to
grant sanction was duly delegated to Board
of Directors. Paragraphs Nos.14, 19 and 20
of
counter
affidavit
are
reproduced
hereinafter:

"14.
That
the
contents
of
paragraphs no.15,16,17 & 18 of the writ
petition are misleading and misconceived
as stated, hence denied. In reply it is
submitted that when cases of serious
misconduct committed during service, or
financial loss caused to the department,
come to light against retired employees of
the department, disciplinary proceedings
are initiated against them under Rule 351
(A) of the Civil Services Regulations (CSR)
after obtaining approval from the Board of
Directors, U.P. Jal Nigam (Uran). As per
the decision taken in Item No.163.11 of the
183th Meeting of the Board of Directors of
the erstwhile U.P. Jal Nigam dated
05.07.2014,
the
authority
to
initiate
proceedings
against
referred
public
servants of U.P. Jal Nigam under Rule 351
(A) of CSR has been delegated to the
Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam, subject to post
facto approval being obtained in the next
meeting of the Board of Directors. True
copy of the decision dated 05.07.2014
circulated vide letter dated 28.08.2024 is
being annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure No.CA-2 to this affidavit.

Accordingly, with the permission
of the respondent No. 2 i.e. Chairman,
Uttar
Pradesh
Jal
Nigam
(Urban),
departmental proceedings were initiated
under Rule 351(A) through Memorandum
dated 09.08.2024, in accordance with the
prescribed rules, and the respondent No.5
was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to
conduct an investigation into the charges.
True copy of Memorandum dt. 09.08.2024
is being annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure No. CA-3 to this affidavit.

The proposal placed under Item
No.138.08 of the 138th Meeting of the
Board of Directors of Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam dated 22.01.2003 was approved
by the Board of Directors. Accordingly,
the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999,
issued under Notification No.13/9/98-Ka1-99 dated 09 June, 1999, shall be
deemed applicable to public servants
employed in the Uttar Pradesh Water
Corporation, subject to the following
modifications:
8 All. Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
659

(i)
Wherever
the
words
"Governor" or "State Government" occur
in the said Rules, the words "Corporation"
and "Board of Directors" shall be deemed
to
be
substituted
in
their
place.
Accordingly, the powers conferred on His
Excellency the Governor or the State
Government under the aforementioned
Rules shall be exercised by the "Board of
Directors of the Corporation" in the case of
public servants of the Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam.

(ii) Further as per the order
issued
under
Office
Memorandum
No.1845/P-1/JN/35/137/2002
dated
13.11.2002, while invoking Rules 13, 14,
and 15 of the U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, it
shall not be necessary to comply with Rule
16 of the said Rules.

True copy of the extract of the
138th Board Meeting dated 22.01.2003
circulated vide letter dated 03.02.2003
being annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure No. CA-4 to this affidavit.

In addition to the foregoing, the
following decision has been taken with
regard to the delegation of powers under
Rule 351-A of the CSR vide Letter dated 08
October,
2001
issued
by
Urban
Development Section-3, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, to the Board of Directors of
the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam:

"That from 09.06.1996, the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been in force,
and Rules 7 to 9 therein prescribe the
procedure for imposing major penalties,
including dismissal. Therefore, the inquiry
in the present matter must be conducted
strictly in accordance with the procedure
laid down in the aforesaid Rules of 1999. In
the said Rules as well as in Article 351-A,
wherever the words "Governor" or "State
Government"
appear,
they
shall
be
construed to mean "Corporation" in the
present case. Accordingly, the powers
conferred on the Governor or the State
Government in the said Rules shall be
exercised by the "Corporation" in matters
concerning officers/employees of U.P. Jal
Nigam.

True copy of the letter dated
08.10.2001 issued by the State Govt. is
being annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure No. CA-5 to this affidavit.

In
the
instant
case,
the
Corporation itself is competent to initiate
departmental proceedings against retired
personnel. The approval of the Governor or
the State Government is not required.

19.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph no. 27 of the writ petition so far
as it relates to the Minutes of Meeting
dated 22.10.2024 is a matter of record, rest
of the averments as stated in paragraph
under reply are not admitted, hence denied.
In reply it is submitted that vide Office
Memorandum No.630 dated 09.08.2024, a
proposal for ex post facto approval of the
departmental proceedings initiated against
the petitioner under Rule 351-A of the CSR
was duly placed before the Board of
Directors of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam
(Urban) under Agenda Item No.7.10 in its
meeting held on 22.10.2024. The operative
portion of the decision taken in that
meeting is reproduced below for ready
reference:

During the discussion on this
agenda item, it was brought to the attention
of the Board that Rule 351-A of the CSR
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provides for obtaining permission from His
Excellency the Governor before taking
action
against
retired
departmental
employees. It was argued that the earlier
resolution of the Board empowering itself
as the competent authority in such matters
was inconsistent with legal provisions.
However, in view of the special status of
the
Water
Corporation
(Urban)-in
particular, the fact that employees do not
receive pension from the State Treasurythis argument was prima facie not found
acceptable. Nevertheless, it was resolved
that the matter be subjected to further legal
examination and that the opinion of the
Government be obtained."

That from the above decision, it is
manifest that the argument raised against
the authority of the Board of Directors was
not accepted by the Board of Directors.
The Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Urban) is a
utility-based statutory body, and the status
of its employees is not equivalent to that of
State Government employees.

In pursuance of the above, the
legal opinion of the departmental legal
consultant was obtained, and the relevant
portion thereof is extracted as follows:

"Perused the noting as well as
letter dated 08.10.2001 issued by the
Government. It is crystal clear that since
Jal Nigam has adopted Regulation 351-A
with the prior approval of the State
Government, by means of which the Board
of Directors has been substituted in place
of the Governor, the competent authority in
respect of 351-A proceedings will be the
Board of Directors, U.P. Jal Nigam,
without a doubt.

20. That from the above, it is
evident that the authority under Rule 351-A
of
the
CSR
to
initiate
departmental
proceedings against retired personnel vests
with the Board of Directors, Uttar Pradesh
Jal Nigam/Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Urban).
Accordingly,
disciplinary
proceedings
against the petitioner were lawfully instituted
vide letter dated 09.08.2024, strictly in
accordance with Rule 351-A of the CSR."

19.
Learned
Additional
Advocate
General also submitted that in departmental
proceedings, no interference be caused at a
very initial stage.

20. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

21. On basis of available records, it is
not much under dispute that a newly
constructed Water Tank (under Amrit
Programme) fell down, which resulted into
death of two women and 11 persons were
injured also.

22. A Four Member Committee was
constituted which gave its report dated
25.7.2024.
The
Committee
recorded
statements of residents, living nearby the
Water Tank. Unfortunately, petitioner has not
annexed complete copy of report. Similarly,
respondents have also not filed completely
copy.
Details
of
Executive
Engineers
connected with the project are missing.
Therefore, the Court takes note of earlier
report dated 30.6.2024, submitted by the 2
officials, that the petitioner was appointed in
the concerned region from 7.10.2020 to
8.6.2021, when construction of water tank
was going on and it was complete on
28.8.2021. According to Reports, during his
tenure around 45% of construction took
place.

23. The petitioner has disputed percentage
of construction during his tenure i.e. according
8 All. Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
661
to him, it was only 25%, however, such dispute
would not have any material effect, since
admittedly
final
construction
work
was
undertaken during petitioner's tenure and he
had
opportunity
to
check
standard
of
construction, however, he failed to do so.

24. Now the issue is who is the
Appropriate Authority to grant sanction to
initiate proceedings under Section 351 (a) of
CCS Rules. Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam has
issued an Office Memo dated 3.2.2003,
whereby a decision taken by Board of
Directors, U.P.Jal Nigam in its 138th meeting
dated 22.1.2003 was communicated, whereby
provision of U.P. Government Service Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 were
adopted with an amendment that word
'Governor' or 'State Government' be read as
'Nigam/Board of Directors'. For reference,
Office Memo dated 3.2.2003 is reproduced
hereinafter:

"कायाटलय- ज्ञाप

उत्तर प्रदेश जल लनगम की लनदेशक मंडल की 138वीं
बैठक लदनांक 22-1-2003 के मद संख्या 138.08 पर रखे गये
प्रस्ताव का अनुमोदन लनदेशक मंडल द्वारा लकया गया। तदनुसार उ०प्र०जल
लनगम में कायटरत लोक कलमटयों पर, शासन की अलिसूचना संख्या
13/9/98-का-1-99 लदनांक 9 जून-1999 द्वारा जारी, "उत्तर प्रदेश
सरकारी सेवक (अनुशासन एवं अपील) लनयमावली-1999" को
लनम्नलललखत संशोिन के साथ लागू माना पायेगा :-

1- उपरोक्त लनयमावली में जहााँ कहीं शब्द राज्यपाल या
राज्य सरकार प्रयुक्त हुआ है, वहााँ शब्द "लनगम लनदेशक मंडल"
प्रलतस्थालपत हुआ माना जायेगा। तदनुसार उपरोक्त लनयमावली में
महामलहम राज्यपाल या राज्य सरकार को प्राि शलक्तयों का प्रयोग,
उ०प्र०जल लनगम के लोक कलमटयों के प्रकरण में "लनगम लनदेशक मंडल"
द्वारा लकया जायेगा।

2- इस कायाटलय के ज्ञाप संख्या 1845/प्र1/ज०लन०अनु०/35/137/2002, लदनांक 13-11-2002 के द्वारा
जारी आदेश के अनुसार उ०प्र०सरकारी सेवक (अनुशासन एवं अपील)
लनयमावली-1999 के लनयम-13, 14 एवं 15 का प्रयोग करते समय, लनयम16 में प्रालविालनत लनयम के पालन करने की आवश्यकता नहीं होगी।"

25. Aforesaid Office Memo dated
3.2.2003 still hold's good and it has never
interfered, therefore, a doubt created in 7th
meeting of Board of Directors has no legal
value, since, above referred decision dated
22.12.2003 is completely applicable upon
respondents also.

26. Otherwise also, later on a legal opinion
was also communicated and till date no contrary
decision is taken by Board of Directors.

27. The Office Memo dated 28.8.2024 of
the respondents also grants permission to take
ex-post facto permission or decision to initiate
proceedings under above referred Rules from
Board of Directors preferably in its next
meeting, which was accordingly placed and
legal impediment was also removed.

28. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is
no legal error in initiating proceedings against
the petitioner after retirement since Board of
Directors decision was duly taken under
aforesaid provisions.

29. Writ Petition being sans merit, is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 661
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 6528 of 2009

Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents