Allowed¶58

Pawan Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Jail Administration and Reform Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2025WRIA/6851/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Post-superannuation disciplinary proceedings; Article 351-A Civil Services Regulations; sanction of the Governor; withholding or withdrawing pension; recovery of pecuniary loss; grave misconduct distinguished from negligence; lack of supervisory control over subordinates; Jail Superintendent; charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 quashed; certiorari; Union of India v. J. Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 286; State of U.P. v. Z.U. Ansari (2016) 16 SCC 768; Surendra Pandey v. State of U.P.; M.M. Malhotra definition of misconduct; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT-A 6851 of 2025; Manish Mathur, J.

What did the court decide?

Impugned charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 and consequent disciplinary proceedings quashed by a writ in the nature of Certiorari; parties to bear their own costs. ¶58

Pawan Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Jail Administration and Reform Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 and consequent disciplinary proceedings quashed by a writ in the nature of Certiorari; parties to bear their own costs.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after his superannuation was competently instituted under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Proceedings against a superannuated employee can be initiated or continued subject to sanction accorded by the Governor of the State, but only where there is an allegation of grave misconduct or causing loss to the State exchequer.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Lack of supervisory jurisdiction over subordinates can at best be attributed to negligence towards duties and does not constitute grave misconduct, particularly as there is no allegation of causing any pecuniary loss to Government.

¶55

Key takeaways

The allegations levelled against the petitioner do not fall within the scope of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations; consequently, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by means of the impugned charge sheet was incompetent.ratio¶56
The impugned charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 and the consequent disciplinary proceedings are quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Mathur, J. — WRIT-A No. 6851 of 2025, decided 27.11.2025: Petition ALLOWED. The charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 instituting disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, a Jail Superintendent who superannuated on 31.03.2025, and the consequent proceedings were quashed by writ of Certiorari. Examining Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, the Court held that proceedings against a superannuated employee require the Governor's sanction and lie only where the pensioner is guilty of grave misconduct or has caused pecuniary loss by misconduct or negligence; the sole allegation against the petitioner — inadequate supervisory control over subordinates, i.e., negligence — with no pecuniary loss alleged, falls outside Article 351-A, following Union of India v. J. Ahmed ((1979) 2 SCC 286) and the co-ordinate Bench decision in Surendra Pandey (Civil Misc. W.P. No. 1741 of 2001), making initiation of the proceedings incompetent.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 6851 of 2025

Pawan Pratap Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Jail Administration And Reform Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Shanker Tewari, Rakesh Kumar Verma, Vishwakant Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 7

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard Mr. Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶11

Petition has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 whereby disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner after superannuation.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner superannuated from service on the post of Jail Superintendent on 31.03.2025 whereafter the impugned charge sheet has been issued to him but without complying with the mandatory provision of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation since no sanction or approval of the Governor of the State has been granted.

¶13

It is submitted that even otherwise provisions of Article - 351-A of the Regulations would be applicable only in case of the delinquent employee being accused of grave misconduct or having caused pecuniary loss to the government. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned charge sheet will make it evident that the only allegation levelled against petitioner is of lack of supervisory jurisdiction over his subordinates and therefore negligence. It is submitted that negligence cannot be construed as a grave misconduct in terms of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations unless and until some specific ulterior motive is ascribed to the delinquent employee.

¶14

WRIA No. 6851 of 2025

¶15

¶16

It is thus submitted that since the aspect of allegation levelled against the petitioner is only of negligence pertaining to supervisory jurisdiction and there being no allegation of causing any pecuniary loss to the State Government, proceedings even otherwise are not maintainable in terms of Article 351-A of the Regulations. He has placed reliance on judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. J. Ahmed [(1979) 2 SCC 286] and State of U.P. v. Z.U.Ansari [(2016) 16 SCC 768 as well as of this Court in the case of Surendra Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1741 of 2001 .

¶17

In response thereto, learned State Counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit dated 14/19.08.2025, has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that sanction under Article 351-A of the Regulations was granted by Governor of the State vide order dated 23.06.2025. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against petitioner are serious enough to merit continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the aspect of consideration of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations would require consideration. Such provision is as follows:-

¶19

"351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on reemployment after retirement:

¶20

Provided that --

¶21

(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment --

¶22

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor.

¶23

WRIA No. 6851 of 2025

¶24

¶25

(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding; and

¶26

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made.

¶27

(b) Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and

¶28

¶29

Provided that of the order passed by the Governor relates to cash dealt with under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings, (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, it shall not be necessary to consult Public Service Commission].

¶30

Explanation -- For the purposes of this article --

¶31

(a) Departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from and earlier date, on such date; and

¶32

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted;

¶33

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings,l on the date on which complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court; and

¶34

(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made to a Civil Court.

¶35

Note -- As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this article are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings shall without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer concerned."

¶36

From examination of the aforesaid provision, it is thus evident that

¶37

WRIA No. 6851 of 2025

¶38

¶39

proceedings against a superannuated employee can be initiated or continued subject to sanction accorded by the Governor of the state, but only in case allegation of grave misconduct or causing loss to the State exchequer has been alluded.

¶40

In the present case, a perusal of the impugned charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 would make it evident that only allegation levelled against the petitioner was of inadequate supervisory control over his subordinates and thereby of negligence.

¶41

The said aspect has already been considered by Supreme Court in the case of J. Ahmed (supra) in the following manner:-

¶42

"9. The five charges listed above at a glance would convey the impression that the respondent was not a very efficient officer. Some negligence is being attributed to him and some lack of qualities expected of an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner are listed as charges. to wit, charge No. 2 refers to the quality of lack of leadership and charge No. 5 enumerates inaptitude, lack of foresight, lack of firmness and indecisiveness. These are qualities undoubtedly expected of a superior officer and they may be very relevant while considering whether a person should be promoted to the higher post or not or having been promoted, whether he should be retained in the higher post or not or they may be relevant for deciding the competence of the person to hold the post, but they cannot be elevated to the level of acts of omission or commission as contemplated by Rule 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules so as to incur penalty under rule 3. Competence for the post, capability to hold the same, efficiency requisite for a post, ability to discharge function attached to the post, are things different from some act or omission of the holder of the post which may be styled as misconduct so as to incur the penalty under the rules. The words 'acts and omission' contemplated by rule 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules have to be understood in the context of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954 ('Conduct Rules' for short). The Government has prescribed by Conduct Rules a code

¶43

WRIA No. 6851 of 2025

¶44

¶45

of conduct for the members of All India Services. Rule 3 is of a general nature which provides that every member of the service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Lack of integrity, if proved, would undoubtedly entail penalty. Failure to come up to the highest expectations of an officer holding a responsible post or lack of aptitude or qualities of leadership would not constitute failure to maintain devotion to duty. The expression 'devotion to duty' appears to have been used as something opposed to indifference to duty or easy-going or light-hearted approach to duty. If rule 3 were the only rule in the Conduct Rules it would have been rather difficult to ascertain what constitutes misconduct in a given situation. But rules 4 to 18 of the Conduct Rules prescribe code of conduct for members of service and it can safely stated that an act or omission contrary to or in breach of prescribed rules of conduct would constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. This code of conduct being not exhaustive it would not be prudent to say that only that act or omission would constitute misconduct for the purpose of Discipline and Appeal Rules which is contrary to the various provisions in the Conduct Rules. The inhibitions in the Conduct Rules clearly provide that an act or omission contrary thereto as to run counter to the expected code of conduct would certainly constitute misconduct. Some other act or ommission may as well constitute misconduct. Allegations in the various charges do not specify any act or omission in derogation of or contrary to Conduct Rules save the general rule 3 prescribing devotion to duty. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would themselves constitute misconduct. If it is so, every officer rated average would be guilty of misconduct. Charges in this case as stated earlier clearly indicate lack of efficiency, lack of foresight and indecisiveness as serious lapses on the part of the respondent. These deficiencies in personal character of personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the

¶46

WRIA No. 6851 of 2025

¶47

¶48

purpose of disciplinary proceedings."

¶49

11.In a similar circumstance, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Pandey (supra) has held as follows:-

¶50

"The sole question, therefore, that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner under the provisions of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations even if it is to be assumed that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of having loose control over his subordinates as a result of which two prisoners fled away from the District Jail Gonda. Regulation 351-A clearly provides that the Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from pension, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been ''guilty of grave misconduct' during his service. The Supreme Court in Jamil Ahmad (supra) observed that failure to attain the highest expectation of an Officer holding responsible post or lack of aptitude of quality of leadership would not constitute as failure to maintain devotion to duty because if it is so then every Officer rated average would be guilty of misconduct. In the said case the charges levelled against the Officer indicated lack of efficiency, lack of foresight and lack of indecisiveness but the Supreme Court observed that these deficiencies in personal character or personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings. In M.M. Malhotra (supra) the Supreme Court observed:-

¶51

"Misconduct" as stated in Batt's Law of Master and Servant (4^th Edition) (at page 63) is "comprised positive acts and not mere neglects or failures". The definition of the work as given in Ballentine's Law Dictionary (148^th Edition) is "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except

¶52

WRIA No. 6851 of 2025

¶53

¶54

what necessity may demand, it is a violation of definite law, a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness."

¶55

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances, it is thus evident that the aspect of lack of supervisory jurisdiction over subordinates can at best be attributed to negligence towards duties and would not come within the scope of any grave misconduct, particularly since there is no allegation of causing any pecuniary loss to Government.

¶56

In view of the discussions made here-in-above, it is thus evident that allegations levelled against petitioner do not fall within the scope of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations and therefore initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner by means of impugned charge sheet were incompetent.

¶57

Considering the aforesaid discussion, the impugned charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 and consequent disciplinary proceedings are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Consequences to follow.

¶58

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶59

November 27, 2025 lakshman

¶60

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶61

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pawan Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Jail Administration and Reform Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Jail Administration and Reform Lko. and 3 Others

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

Raghvendra Singh PNO-060741484 and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Dept. Lko and 5 Others

Akhilesh KUMAR,PNO-060680974 and 17 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 9 Others

Rajneesh Kumar Pno NO.060471635 and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Chandrakesh Yadav Pno NO.060620558 vs the State of U.P. Thru. It Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 4 Others

Amit Kumar Singh Pno 060602028 and 15 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Akhilesh KUMAR,PNO-060680974 and 17 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 9 Others