Sanjay Kumar Mathur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and Another

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4163 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Mathur Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Energy Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shireesh Kumar,Utkarsh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

and

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5030 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Energy U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shireesh Kumar,Utkarsh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶6

Since both the petitions pertain to the same cause of action, they are being heard together and decided by a common judgment.

¶7

Petitions have been filed challenging the remarks recorded and concurrence expressed thereon in the annual character roll of petitioners for the year 2022-23.

¶8

Further a direction has been sought to opposite parties to declare petitioners entitled to all consequential service benefits arising out of expunging of adverse remarks in character roll of petitioners for the year 2022-23.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that for the aforesaid years 2022-23, the Directorate of Electrical Safety, Lucknow reported petitioners’ character roll as ‘outstanding’ but the approving authority indicated as the Additional Chief Secretary downgraded the same to ‘Good’ which has also been approved by the Minister of Department concerned on 21.05.2024.

¶10

The primary gist of challenge to the aforesaid orders is that they have been passed without jurisdiction and are not in consonance with the government order dated 21.05.1976.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner has adverted to paragraphs-13-14 of the

¶12

WRIA No. 4163 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

writ petitions to submit that petitioners at the relevant time were employed as Deputy Director in the Department and the authorities next higher to them in the hierarchy were:-

¶15

(1) Joint Director; (2) Additional Director; and (3) Director

¶16

It is submitted that as per provisions of the government order dated 21.5.1976, the reporting, reviewing and concurring authorities for petitioners therefore were the Joint Director, Additional Director and Director respectively but in the present case, the reporting authority is the Director who has given an entry of ‘outstanding’ but the reviewing and concurring authorities are indicated as the Additional Chief Secretary and Minister of the Department. It is therefore submitted that due to the remarks made by the alleged reviewing and concurring authority, petitioners entry as given by the Director of the Department has been downgraded thereby prejudicing petitioners chances in career advancement.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj Srivastava vs. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature At Alld. and Anr, Writ-A No.18615 of 2021.

¶18

Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has placed reliance on paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit to submit that the entries are in accordance with the government orders dated 21.05.1976 and 30.10.1986 and since from the level of department of Energy, no orders or directions have been issued for prescribing a reporting, reviewing or approving officers, the procedure in practice is that the annual confidential entry for the post of Deputy Director is recorded by the Directorate, Electrical Safety as reporting authority and the Secretary/Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary being one rank higher to him is the reviewing officer but the authority one rank above to him being a minister of department concerned, is the approving officer.

¶19

Learned State Counsel has also adverted to paragraph-4-D of the counter affidavit to submit that it was in accordance with the aforesaid government orders that annual character entries for the years 2015-2016 till 2021-2022 have also been recorded in the same manner with regard to which petitioners never raised any objection and therefore would be bound by the principle of estopple.

¶20

WRIA No. 4163 of 2024

¶21

3

¶22

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that the annual character roll entries are required to be made as per the government orders dated 21.05.1976 and 30.10.1986 which provide as follows:-

¶23

'प्रत्येक अिधकारी की वािषक गोपनीय प्रिविष्ट ठीक उसके ऊपर के प्रािधकारी द्वारा िलखी जायेगी तया उस प्रिविष्ट का पुनरीक्षण प्रिविष्ट िलखने वाले अिधकारी के ठीक ऊपर के प्रािधकारी द्वारा तथा उसका स्वीकरण पुनरीक्षण करने वाले अिधकारी के ठीक ऊपर के प्रािधकारी द्वारा िकया जायेगा। समस्त प्राशासिनक िवभाग अपने अधीनस्थ पुनरीक्षण सेवाओं तथा अिधकािरयों के सम्यन्ध में तदनुसार प्रितवेदक प्रािधकारी / समीक्षक प्रािधकारी / स्वीकृत प्रािधकारी िनयत करेंगे। "

¶24

It is also evident that the hierarchy of posts as indicated in paragraph13 of the writ petition has been blindly refuted by opposite parties without indicating any hierarchy which is different from that indicated in the said paragraph of the writ petition.

¶25

In such circumstances, it is therefore evident that the hierarchy indicated in paragraph-13 and 14 is admitted by the opposite parties.

¶26

A perusal of paragraph-4-B of the counter affidavit indicates that in the present case, annual character roll entries have been recorded by the authorities as it is a procedure in practice since no orders or directions have been issued for prescribing the reporting, reviewing and approving officers.

¶27

Considering aforesaid facts, it is evident and admitted that as per hierarchy in the department, the authorities next higher to rank in petitioners are the Joint Director, Additional Director and Director respectively.

¶28

No reasons whatsoever has been indicated in the counter affidavit for deviating with the aforesaid hierarchy except that this is the procedure in practice.

¶29

It is noticeable that the opposite parties themselves placed reliance on the government order dated 21.05.1976.

¶30

It is settled law that procedure in practice cannot supersede any specific statutory, subordinate provision or any government order. From the aforesaid facts indicated above, it is thus evident that as per the aforesaid government order, the reporting authority for petitioner should have been the Joint Director with the Reviewing Authority being the

¶31

WRIA No. 4163 of 2024

¶32

4

¶33

Additional Director of the Department and concurring authority being the Director of the Department.

¶34

Quite evidently the said scheme has not been followed by opposite parties only on the ground that this is not the procedure in practice.

¶35

It has also been adverted in paragraph-4-D of the counter affidavit that petitioner has never raised such a plea with regard to annual character roll entries prior to the entry for the concerned year. Here again, it is settled law that principles of estopple do not operate against statutory provision.

¶36

The aforesaid aspect has also been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj Srivastava (supra) in which it has also been held that it is in accordance with the government order dated 21.05.1976 that the reporting, reviewing and concurring authorities are required to record the annual character roll entries.

¶37

In view thereof, it is thus evident that the Director of the Department who actually should have been the concurring authority has recommended an entry of outstanding for the petitioner whereas the same has been downgraded by the alleged reviewing and concurring authorities.

¶38

Considering the discussions made herein above, it is thus evident that the reviewing and concurring authority in the present case have acted without jurisdiction since they are not the reviewing and concurring authorities in terms of the government order dated 21.05.1976.

¶39

Considering aforesaid facts, the entries recorded in the annual character roll of petitioners for the year 2022-2023 as recorded by the Additional Chief Secretary and the Minister of Department concerned, claiming themselves to be the reviewing and concurring authority, are hereby held to be without jurisdiction and therefore quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari expunging the remarks indicated by the said authorities from the annual character roll of petitioners.

¶40

A further writ in the nature of mandamus is therefore issued commanding the opposite parties to record the entry as recommended by the Director of the Department being the concurring authority indicated in the department as per the government order.

¶41

Consequently, service benefits arising out of a direction issued herein above are required to be followed through by the opposite parties within a

¶42

WRIA No. 4163 of 2024

¶43

5

¶44

period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy is served upon the concerned authorities.

¶45

In Writ-A No.5030 of 2024, petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27.05.2024 rejecting his representation.

¶46

In view of discussion made here in above, the aforesaid order dated 27.05.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari with consequences as indicated here in above.

¶47

Resultantly the petitions succeed and are allowed.

¶48

Parties to bear their own cost.

¶49

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Shahnaz

¶50

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

Sanjay Kumar Mathur v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Mathur v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pinki Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Chandra Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Cooperative Lko. and 3 Others

Dev Narayan Pandey and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Director Prantiya Raksha Dal/Vikas Dal Avam Uva Kalyan U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Gaya Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Fahim Ahmad (Constable) Pno. 062015846 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others