Dismissed

Rajvir Singh v. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2025SPLA/161/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant's intra-court appeal challenging a writ order that quashed his suspension and directed conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The court upheld the initiation of proceedings for alleged disproportionate income.

What did the court decide?

The intra-court appeal was rejected, sustaining the writ court's order to conclude disciplinary proceedings.

Rajvir Singh Vs U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

In The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Sitting At Lucknow

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25403-DB

¶3

Court No. - 1

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 161 of 2025

¶5

Appellant :- Rajvir Singh

¶6

Respondent :- U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Thru. Managing Director And 4 Others

¶7

Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Rai,Lallan Rai,Prakarsh Pandey,Praveen Kumar Shukla

¶8

Counsel for Respondent :- Shishir Jain

¶9

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

¶10

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶11

Heard Sri P. K. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has assailed the judgment/order dated 10.04.2025 passed by the writ court in Writ-A No.3907 of 2025 whereby challenge to the charge-sheet and order of suspension passed against the appellant has failed. The writ petition filed by the appellant has been disposed of issuing a specific direction to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the reply filed by him in response to the charge-sheet and subject to his cooperation in the same.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the charges framed against him though are referable to Rule-18 (1) and (2) of the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1998 but the allegations are such that the same do not constitute a misconduct.

¶14

Page no.1 of 4

¶15

Therefore, not only that the order of suspension is bad in the eye of law but the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings is without sanctity of law.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant in order to buttress the submission put-forth, has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of AL Kalra vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Limited reported in (1984) 3 SCC 316 and has taken us through some relevant paras of the same. In the light of the judgment placed reliance upon, it is argued that the same is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶17

On a plain reading of the Rules, 1998, it is gathered that Rule-5 (3) in relation to allegations made, defines the misconduct as under :-

¶18

“Rule-5 (3) " कदाचार" शब ् द की व ् यापकता पर प ्र त ि तक ू ल ू

¶19

प ्र भाव डाले ब ि �ना अकारण और आचरण क ब े ि नम ् नल ि लल ि �त काय े को कदाचार माना जायेगा

¶20

(1) -----

¶21

(2) -----

¶22

(3) कम%चारी द ्व ारा या उसकी ओर से ब ि कसी अन ् य व ् यब ि , द ्व ारा आय क ज े ्ञ ात साधनो ं से असंगत धन सं�ंधी संसाधन या सम ् पल ि 1 े या स ् वाब ि मत ् व र�ना, ज ि जसका कम%चारी सन ् तोषप ्र द र ू प से ले�ाजो�ा न दे सकता हो।"

¶23

The charge-sheet issued in the present case has been referred to under Rule-18 (1) and (2) which for ready reference is also extracted hereunder :-

¶24

“18-(1) कोई भी कम%चारी ब ि �ना अपने सक ्ष म प ्र ात ि धकारी की

¶25

पूव% जानकारी क पट े ्ट , े े ब ि गरवी, क ्र य, ब ि वक ्र य, उपहार क र े ू प मे ं े

¶26

Page no.2 of 4

¶27

ब ि कसी भी अचल सम ् पल ि 1 का न तो अपने नाम से और न अपने पर ि रवार क ब े ि कसी सदस ् य क नाम से अत े ि धग ्र हण या ब ि नस ् तारण नही ं ेे करेगा।

¶28

(2) ब ि �ना अपने सक ्ष म अत ि धकारी की पूव% अनुमत ि त क, े े कोई भी कम%चारी ब ि कसी ऐसे व ् यब ि , या प ्र त ि तष ्ठ ान क कम%चारी या उसक े े ेे मातहत से ज ि जसक साथ उसका पदीय काय से सम े ् �न ् ध हो, े

¶29

ब ि कसी अचल या चल सम ् पल ि 1 सम ् �न ् धी लेन-देन नही ं करेगा।"

¶30

Definite allegations in the charge-sheet have been levelled pointing out the properties which have been acquired by the appellant without any intimation or permission by the competent authority. The immovable properties possessed by an employee working in the Corporation disproportionate to the known source of income certainly amounts to a misconduct in view of the definition clause provided under Rule-5 sub rule 3 extracted above.

¶31

In the case at hand, the allegations made in the chargesheet regarding acquisition of the property have not been denied altogether on the basis of any tangible proof showing that no such title whatsoever has been acquired by the appellant in the properties mentioned in the chargesheet.

¶32

In any case once the allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of acquiring immovable property disproportionate to his known source of income, there is no reason as to why such a proceeding may not be allowed to continue and brought to its logical conclusion at the earliest.

¶33

On a careful consideration of the judgment/order under appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by writ court does not suffer from

¶34

Page no.3 of 4

¶35

any illegality calling for an interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this court on the grounds urged before us.

¶36

The intra-court appeal bereft of any merit is accordingly rejected .

¶37

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J)

¶38

Order Date:-02.05.2025

¶39

Shahnaz

¶40

Page no.4 of 4

¶41

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajvir Singh v. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajvir Singh v. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Prakash Rai Alias Rai Ramprakash Mahvirbhai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Prabhat Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Neeraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Saurabh Vohra and Another Vs District Magistrate Barabanki and 2 Others

Shyamu Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 7 Others