Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Mishra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others on 3 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:192965
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15051 of 2025
Anil Kumar Mishra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Vinayak Ranjan, Yash Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinayak Ranjan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the petition be decided at the fresh stage.
3. This Court 07.10.2025 entertained the present writ petition and sought instructions. The matter was taken up on 15.10.2025 and on 30.10.2025, instructions were produced under the signature of Additional Transport Commissioner, Revenue, Uttar Pradesh dated 29.10.2025 but the learned Standing Counsel finding it to be not answering the queries so raised took time pursuant whereto, the matter has been fixed today and today again instructions dated 29.10.2025 which was earlier was received has been produced which is taken on record.
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Inspector, Technical in the month of May, 1992 in the Transport Department and he was promoted on the post of Regional Inspector, Technical on 30.12.2003 and further promoted on 22.11.2012 on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer. Thereafter, the writ petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2021. On 16.12.2024, an office memorandum came to be issued by the Principal Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, Government Transport Anubhag-3, purportedly under Section 351-A of the Civil Service Regulation for initiation of the departmental inquiry against the writ petitioner, followed by a charge sheet dated 20.01.2025.
5. Questioning the office memorandum dated 16.12.2024 and the charge sheet dated 30.01.2025, the present writ petition has been preferred.
6. This Court on 07.10.2025 proceeded to pass the following orders.-
"Contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner herein had superannuated on 30.06.2021, however, the impugned chargesheet issued on 20.01.2025 and there has been no compliance of the provisions contained under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation with regard to obtaining of the sanction from the Governor before the appointing authority.
Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel seeks time to obtain instructions.
Put up this case on 15.10.2025 as fresh."
7. On 15.10.2025, following orders were passed.-
"1. Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the instructions which have been received are thoroughly insufficient. He seeks time to obtain proper instructions.
2. Time prayed for is accorded.
3. Put up this case on 30.10.2025, as fresh."
8. Lastly on 30.10.2025, the following orders were passed.-
"Post passing of the order dated 07.10.2025, the matte is listed today.
Instructions have been forwarded to the Court dated 29.10.2025 of Additional Transport Commissioner, U.P. and marked as Appendix A.
Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel submits that only two days' time be accorded to have complete instructions while specifically answering to the query dated 07.10.2025.
Put up this case on 03.11.2025 as fresh.
Instructions have been filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A."
9. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the impugned proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued particularly when in such a contingency, in view of the provisions contained under Article 351-A sanction has to be accorded by the Governor being the appointing authority. Submission is that there are certain criteria which have to be adhered to and on mere asking the proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued particularly when first of all there should be a sanction of the governor to institute proceedings and it shall not be in respect of the event which is more than four years from institution of the said proceedings. He submits that the said ingredients are thoroughly lacking and there happens to be no sanction of the governor as he has to be specific order according sanction in that regard, the requirements under the statute.
10. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that whatever might be there happens to be an order dated 16.12.2024 for initiation of the departmental proceedings and further the requirement may not be of a specific order of the Governor.
11. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.
12. Apparently, the application under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulation is not under dispute. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2021 and departmental proceedings stood initiated on 16.12.2024 and charge sheet was issued on 20.01.2025. The allegations contained in the charge sheet are referable to 01.01.2018 to 31.08.2022 whereas according to the writ petitioner and in the case of the respondents, he superannuated on 30.06.2021.
13. In Smt. Sarita Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Writ-A No. 393 of 2025 decided on 30.01.2025, the following was observed.-
"6. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. has informed that no sanction from the Governor under Article 351A of CSR Rules has been received but power has been exercised under Article 166(2) and 166(3) of the Constitution which provides for authentication to be made on behalf of Governor.
7. In the present case, the grant of sanction is not an executive action of the Government of the State which has to be taken in the name of the Governor but the reading of Article 351A of CSR Rules itself demonstrates that Governor reserves to himself the right of liberty for withdrawing the pension or any part of it.
8. In case the intention of the legislature was that the sanction has to be given by the State then the provisions of Article 351A would have been worded differently but the language that the Governor has reserved for himself clearly indicates that the said file pertaining to sanction has to be approved by the Governor.
9. This issue was also considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Z.U.Ansari Vs. State of U.P. (Writ A No. 19485 of 2012):-
"So far as the Rules of Business, 1975 are concerned, it is admitted to the State that these rules have been framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Article 166 of the Constitution of India deals with the conduct of government business and provides that all executive actions of the Government/State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor and it is with reference to these actions of the State Government that a power has been conferred upon the Governor to frame the business rules. Article 166 of the Constitution of India reads as follows :
Article 166-- (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor.
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor.
(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business insofar as it is not business with respect to which the /governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion.?
We are of the considered opinion that the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India operate in a separate field vis-a-vis the conduct of government business under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. They are not overlapping. Therefore, if under the service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India namely the Civil Services Regulations, 1975, it has been provided that sanction of the Governor would be necessary before initiation of the departmental proceedings with the service of the charge sheet upon the retired employee then such sanction has to be that of the Governor and not of the minister with reference to the U.P. Secretariat Instructions 1982 framed under the Rules of Business, 1975. We may also record that the U.P. Secretariat Instructions 1982, Chapter VII only provide that all business allocated to a department under the Rules of Business, 1975 is to be disposed of by or under the General or special directions of the minister in charge (Reference Business Regulations 3). It is, therefore, clear that only such business as allocated to the department under the Rules of Business, 1975 can be disposed of under the general or special directions of the minister in charge.
Nothing has been demonstrated before us to lead us to accept that the power to sanction the departmental proceedings in respect of a retired government servant has been allocated as a business to be disposed of under the general or special directions of the minister concerned under the Business Regulations.
We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the sanction of the minister referable to the Business Regulations in the facts of the case will not amount to the sanction of the Governor as contemplated by Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975.
So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent in the case of State of Orissa (Supra), we may record that the same is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case specifically with reference to the Rules of Business, 1975 of the State of U.P. referred to by us.
In absence of sanction of the Governor, no departmental proceedings can be initiated against a government servant after his retirement, the impugned charge-sheet cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 27.06.2011 is hereby quashed as also the departmental proceedings initiated thereto against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits with the result of the quashing of the charge-sheet and the departmental proceedings. The State is directed to take appropriate action in that regard within two months from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon the State Government.
Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations/direction made herein above."
10. Accordingly, it is noticed that the Division Bench was of the view that where the provision has been made for sanction to be granted by the Governor then any person other than the Governor cannot grant such a sanction and where the Minister referable to the business regulations in the previous case has granted the sanction was held to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
11. In the present case, admittedly the sanction has not been granted by the Governor and only the authentication has been done and the order passed treating it as if the sanction has been given by the State which in any case does not have any power to grant sanction under Article 351A of the CSR Rules. In either view of the matter, the sanction not having been granted by the Governor, the entire proceedings pursuant to such sanction are vitiated."
14. Sri Gaurav Singh, at this instance submits that the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department does not advert to the said position and it is not forthcoming whether sanction had been accorded by the Governor or not and according to him, the order be set aside leaving it open to the appropriate authority under Article 351-A to accord sanction.
15. In view of the said categorical statement, this Court is not delving into the said issue. Accordingly, the office memorandum dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, Government Transport Anubhag-3 is set aside. Since the order initiating departmental proceedings have been set aside, thus, any departmental proceedings if it is permissible under law and as per the four corners of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation can only be conducted provided fresh sanction is accorded.
16. With the said observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
17. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'B'.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
November 3, 2025
Rajesh
