Kaushalendra Kumar Singh vs Hon Ble Inspecting Judge Hardoi And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12560 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kaushalendra Kumar Singh vs Hon Ble Inspecting Judge Hardoi And ... on 15 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
Reserved on 15.10.2025
 
Delivered on 15.11.2025
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW
 
WRIT  A No. - 1248 of 2000
 

 
Kaushalendra Kumar Singh
 

 
..Petitioners(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
Hon Ble Inspecting Judge Hardoi And Another
 

 
..Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
G.S. Sikarwar, Abhay Kumar, Shambhoo Sharan Lal Sriva
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra
 

 

 
Court No. - 25
 

 
HONBLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Shambhoo Sharan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tushar Mittal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking relief for quashing of the order dated 02.04.1994, whereby the petitioner was removed from service and the order dated 13.10.1998, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of removal from service was rejected.

3. The relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are as under :-

The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Class-IV employee on 01.09.1984 at the Judgeship, Hardoi and was posted as Copyist on 05.11.1984 in the Copying Department. While working on the said post, two incidents took place on 25.02.1991.

In the first incident, a complaint was made by a lady employee of the Judgeship, Hardoi, against the petitioner, alleging that he misbehaved with her and assaulted her with wrongful intention. On the aforesaid complaint, a preliminary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 05.03.1991. On the basis of the said inquiry report, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.03.1991. Thereafter, a final disciplinary inquiry was initiated in respect of the aforesaid incident and was finally concluded by passing the punishment order dated 20.07.1991, whereby the petitioner was awarded stoppage of three increments permanently and an adverse entry in the character roll.

Another complaint dated 25.02.1991 was made against the petitioner by the Assistant Nazir, stating that the petitioner had pressurized him to keep his gun along with cartridges in the belt in the almirah of the Nazarat for a little while, which was permitted by the Assistant Nazir in good faith. It is also stated that after some time, the petitioner came into the Nazarat room with another person, bolted the doors from inside and inquired about the Assistant Nazir, who was not present at that time. In his absence, the petitioner broke open the almirah of the Nazarat, took out his gun along with the cartridges in the belt and went away.

On the aforesaid complaint, the then District Judge, Hardoi, on 26.09.1991, directed the Officer In-charge, Nazarat, to inquire into the matter and submit a report. The Officer In-charge submitted his report dated 13.05.1991, affirming the complaint dated 25.02.1991 and on that basis, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and charges were framed against the petitioner, which were duly approved by the then District Judge, Hardoi. The charge-sheet dated 30.07.1991 was issued to the petitioner, framing three charges, which are reproduced hereinbelow :-

Firstly. That you on 25.2.91 at about 3.30 P.M. pressed Sri G.K. Dixit, Assistant Nazir, to allow you to keep your gun in the almirah in Nazarat and thereby guilty of misconduct.

Secondly. That you on the aforesaid date at about 4 P.M rushed into the Nazarat room and bolted the door from inside and you alongwith your companion broke open the almirah and took the gun and cartridges and thereby guilty of misconduct.

Thirdly. That you on 25.2.91 brought the gun and cartridges into the court building and office without the permission of the District Judge and thereby you are guilty of misdemeanour.

The Inquiry Officer, after holding the inquiry, submitted his report dated 16.03.1994, in which all three charges were found proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 18.03.1994 was issued to the petitioner along with a copy of the inquiry report dated 16.03.1994, requiring him to submit his reply within 15 days. The petitioner submitted his reply by letter dated 30.03.1994. The disciplinary authority, i.e., respondent no. 2, after considering the inquiry report as well as the explanation of the petitioner and his application dated 23.09.1991 for dropping the disciplinary proceedings, passed an order dated 02.04.1994 holding that the petitioner was totally unfit for service and removed him by providing one months pay in lieu of notice, with a finding that he had violated Rule 614-A of the General Rules (Civil), 1957.

The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the punishment order dated 02.04.1994, filed Writ Petition No. 1745 (S/S) of 1994, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.1994 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy in the form of departmental appeal. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the punishment order dated 02.04.1994, which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.10.1998. Both orders i.e. the punishment order dated 02.04.1994 and the appellate order dated 13.10.1998 have been challenged in the present writ petition.

4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated as the charge-sheet was neither signed nor approved by the appointing authority and hence was without jurisdiction; copies of the relevant documents were not provided to the petitioner; the punishment order was passed treating the petitioner as a temporary employee, whereas he was a confirmed employee and although the appellate authority recognized that the petitioner was a permanent employee, it nevertheless upheld the order of punishment dated 02.04.1994.

5. Lastly, it has been argued that Rule 614-A of General Rules (Civil), 1957 was not existing on the date of incident dated 25.02.1991 and as such the violation of Rule 614-A of General Rules (Civil), 1957 against the petitioner cannot be alleged. Apart from that, it has also been contended that already an inquiry was conducted with regard to the incident dated 25.02.1991 in which the punishment order dated 20.07.1991 was already passed and hence the petitioner could not be subjected to second inquiry for the same charges for which he was already tried and punished in separate disciplinary proceedings as it would amount to jeopardy.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the inquiry report and the punishment order, contending that there was no error in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself. The inquiry report dated 16.03.1994 indicates that the statements of witnesses, Assistant Nazir, Cashier, Process Server as well as the petitioner were recorded during the inquiry. The petitioner, in his statement, did not deny that he had kept his gun and cartridge belt in the almirah of the Nazarat; rather, he admitted that he broke open the almirah because the Assistant Nazir was not present when he came back to retrieve his gun. It was further contended that the punishment order dated 02.04.1994 is a well-reasoned and speaking order, passed with due consideration of all material facts and proper application of mind and thus suffers from no irregularity or illegality. The appellate order dated 13.10.1998 was also justified, as the departmental inquiry was held under the rules applicable to permanent employees and the payment of one months salary to the petitioner did not cause him any prejudice.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record of the writ petition along with the counter and rejoinder affidavits, this Court, upon close scrutiny of the inquiry report, finds that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in a proper and fair manner. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case. Relevant witnesses in support of the charges were duly examined in the presence of the petitioner, and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded. Though learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the relevant documents in support of the charges were not supplied, no specific document has been referred by him to indicate that any document material to the inquiry was withheld from the petitioner during the course of the inquiry proceedings. The undisputed fact remains that, as per the statement of the petitioner recorded before the Inquiry Officer, the charges against him stood proved. The statement of the petitioner recorded before the Inquiry Officer is reproduced herebelow:

That Sri K.K. Singh has stated that on 25.02.1991 he was posted as Copyist in the Copying Department. On that day, at about 4.35 PM, there had been dispute between him and Km. Radha Rani Jaiswal, Copyist. On hearing her cries, several litigants and Advocates chased him for beating. He ran and entered Into NAZARAT and closed both the doors. The crowd had assembled outside the NAZARAT and they were threatening to take out and beat him. On that day, at about 3 P.M. he had kept his gun and belt of cartridges in the almirah of Sri Govind Krishna Dixit, Assistant Nazir, as he was going to latrine. He had brought the gun and cartridges for showing to Arms Clerk and for getting the entries made in the licence. Since, Sri Govind Krishna Dixit was not present in the Nazarat and crowd outside the NAZARAT was threatening to beat him, he had to break KUNDA of his almirah. He took out his gun and belt of cartridges and went out. There was no malafide intention on his part in keeping the gun in the almirah of Assistat Nazir and breaking KUNDA of the almirah. In reply to the question asked by me, he has stated that on 25.2.91 he had brought his D.B.B.L gun and belt of cartridges in the Copying Department and kept the same with him. In lunch time, he went to Collectorate and showed the gun to Arms Clerk for getting the entries made on the licence. Thereafter, he returned from there alongwith the gun and cartridges at about about 2.15 P.M.. After seeing the gun and making entries on the licence, Arms Clerk returned the licence to him. Thereafter, he went to Nazarat for keeping the gun and cartridges at about 3 P.M. and kept the same in the almirah of Sri Dixit. Neither he had obtained the permission of the learned District Judge or Officer in-Charge, Copying Department, for keeping the gun and cartridges in his possession during duty-hours nor gave information to them in this regard.

8. From the above statement, it is evident that on 25.02.1991 at about 4:35 p.m., there was a dispute between him and Kumari Radha Rani Jaiswal, Copyist, which led to chaos. On hearing her cries, several litigants and advocates chased him to beat him and to save himself, he ran and entered in the Nazarat room. He also admitted that he had kept his gun and cartridge belt in the almirah of Sri Govind Krishna Dixit, Assistant Nazir and since a crowd had assembled outside the Nazarat room, threatening to beat him, he broke open the almirah. The only defence taken by the petitioner is that there was no mala fide intention on his part and that the charges were, therefore, incorrect.

9. This Court is of the view that the incident described by the petitioner himself clearly shows that he was indulged in a activity subversive to the decorum of the Court and dangerous to litigants as well as the general public. The other ground taken by the petitioner regarding non-approval of the charge-sheet is also misconceived, as the charge-sheet was approved by the appointing authority, i.e., the then District Judge, Hardoi, as specifically stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976, applicable to permanent employees. Hence, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner when the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order treating him as a temporary employee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding double jeopardy is misconceived, inasmuch as the punishment order dated 20.07.1991, awarding the punishment of stoppage of three increments permanently, was in reference to Disciplinary Inquiry No. 02 of 1991, which was initiated on the complaint of a lady employee regarding harassment. In that inquiry, separate charges were framed and after following the due process, the punishment order dated 20.07.1991 was finally passed. Whereas, the disciplinary proceeding in the case of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the present case, relates to Disciplinary Proceeding No.08 of 1991, which was based on different charges, though the incident pertained to the same date, i.e., 25.02.1991. Hence, the argument of the petitioner with regard to double jeopardy that he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings twice for the same charges is factually incorrect.

10. In reference to the applicability of Rule 614-A of the General Rules (Civil), 1957, it can only be said that the disciplinary authority relied upon the said rule to hold the petitioner guilty of misconduct, which was based on the findings recorded in the inquiry report. The report revealed that the petitioner brought a gun and cartridges to the Court and pressurized the Assistant Nazir to keep them in the almirah. Thereafter, he broke open the almirah to take them out when he was under threat of being beaten up by mob chasing him. Even if it is assumed that Rule 614-A of the General Rules (Civil), 1957, was not operational at the relevant point of time, the petitioner cannot be absolved of the charge of bringing the gun and cartridges to the Court premises and breaking open the almirah where they were kept. This clearly indicates that the petitioner, with some oblique motive and planning, brought the gun to the Court premises and such conduct cannot be appreciated. In his statement before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner did not deny the incident; rather, he admitted that he brought the gun and cartridges and kept them in the almirah of Nazarat. Thereafter, he broke open the almirah when he was being chased by the mob for his misbehaviour with the lady employee of the Court. The entire chain of incidents reflects that the petitioner with pre-determination has brought the gun and cartridges to the Court for some mischief but as an excuse before the disciplinary authority has stated that he had brought the gun for renewal of his license. Even if that was the case, then there was no need for the petitioner to break open the almirah.

11. Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976, prescribes the procedure for holding disciplinary proceedings, which was duly followed by the Inquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority before passing the punishment order dated 02.04.1991. The appellate order dated 13.10.1998 is also justified, as the appellate authority rightly observed that the punishment order was passed after following due disciplinary procedure applicable to a permanent employee. The mere fact that the petitioner was not treated as a permanent employee while imposing the punishment does not make any difference.

12. This Court is of the view that, in light of the admission of the delinquent employee (petitioner) with regard to the charges as recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report, the punishment order dated 02.04.1991 as well as the appellate order dated 13.10.1998 do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

9. It is needless to mention that the scope of writ jurisdiction while dealing with issues relating to disciplinary proceedings is limited. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and the power of judicial review conferred on a Constitutional Court or Tribunal is limited.

10. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao : AIR 1963 SC 1723, a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court has held that the High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental inquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the inquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated.

11. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80, a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.

12. In High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil : (2000) 1 SCC 416, Supreme Court held that interference with the decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

13. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya : (2011) 4 SCC 584, Supreme Court held that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental Inquiries.

14. In another judgment reported as Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran : (2015) 2 SCC 610, Supreme Court held that while re-appreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings : (SCC p. 617, para 13)

13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

15. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and the observations recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order of removal dated 02.04.1994 and the appellate order dated 13.10.1998.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Amitabh Kumar Rai, J)

November 15, 2025

Ashish Dewal