Dr. Indu Bala Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health Services and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 7916 of 2025

Dr. Indu Bala Verma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health Services And 2 Others

¶7

ea ervces n er	s ...	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mohammad Shameem Kalia, Shubhi Sharma	Rizvi, Sameer
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 7

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

(1) Heard Mr. Sameer Kalia assisted by Mr. Shamim Rizvi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶10

(2) Learned counsel for petitioner is granted liberty to correct prayer (c) during the course of day.

¶11

(3) Petition has been filed challenging Office Memorandum dated 04.09.2023 and charge sheet dated 06.12.2023 whereby enquiry was initiated against petitioner subsequent to her superannuation on 31.07.2022. Further prayer for a direction to authorities concerned for releasing petitioner's unpaid salary for the period 01.02.2022 to 15.02.2022, 16.02.2022 to 28.07.2022 and 29.07.2022 to 31.07.2022 has also been made.

¶12

(4) Earlier on 22.07.2025, following order had been passed:-

¶13

" 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶14

2. Petition has been filed challenging office memorandum dated 04.09.2023 as well as consequent charge-sheet dated 06.12.2023. Various other concomitant prayers have also been made.

¶15

WRIA No. 7916 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

3. It has been submitted that impugned proceedings have been indicated after superannuation of petitioner but without due sanction as required by Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. It is also submitted that with regard to aforesaid allegations, criminal proceedings were also initiated against petitioner in Case Crime No. 0546 of 2022 in which final report was submitted and has also been accepted by Magistrate concerned on 28.03.2023. It is also submitted that inquiry proceedings have not yet concluded.

¶18

4. With aforesaid submissions, learned State Counsel is granted two weeks' time to seek instructions and to file a short affidavit.

¶19

5. List this case on 08.08.2025, as fresh."

¶20

(5) Learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated his twin submissions that firstly, the order impugned purportedly under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations has been passed only by the Secretary concerned and in fact there is no sanction by the Hon'ble Governor of the State. Secondly, it has been submitted that with regard to same charges and allegations, an F.I.R. was registered against petitioner bearing Case Crime No. 0546 of 2022 under Section 420 IPC and in the said case, final report was submitted and has been accepted by the Trial Court without any challenge thereto. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by a Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Z. U. Ansari [(2016) 16 SCC 768] as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this in the case of Smt. Sarita Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 393 of 2025 .

¶21

(6)Learned State Counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit, has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and it is submitted that charges levelled were quite serious in nature and came to knowledge only after her superannuation due to which proceedings were initiated. It is submitted that by means of impugned order, proceedings under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations were initiated nominating the Additional Director, Medical Health & Family Welfare, Moradabad Division as the Inquiry Officer whereafter inquiry has been completed by

¶22

WRIA No. 7916 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

submission of Inquiry Report dated 26.05.2025 but final orders could not be passed since petitioner is not co-operating.

¶25

(7) In pursuance of the directions issued earlier, learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 31.10.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which, sanction under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations has been granted by the competent authority, i.e., Hon'ble Minister concerned of the department.

¶26

(8) Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that with regard to first ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner, it is required to be examined as to whether sanction under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations can be granted by any other authority other than Hon'ble Governor of the State. Provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations are as follows:-

¶27

"Article 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 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 re-employment after retirement:

¶28

Provided that—

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

WRIA No. 7916 of 2025

¶33

4

¶34

(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;

¶35

(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

¶36

(c) the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, shall be consulted before final orders are passed.

¶37

Explanation—For the purposes of this Article— (a) departmental proceedings 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 an earlier date on such date ; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted to a criminal court; and (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.

¶38

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."

¶39

(9) From a perusal of the counter affidavit and written instructions, it is thus evident that there is no sanction accorded by the Governor of the State under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations and opposite parties have resorted to sanction accorded by the Minister of the department concerned.

¶40

(10) The aforesaid aspect has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Z. U. Ansari v. State of U.P. and

¶41

WRIA No. 7916 of 2025

¶42

5

¶43

others (Writ A No. 19485 of 2022) in the following manner:-

¶44

"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 :

¶45

Article 166-- (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor.

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.?

¶48

We are of the considered opinion that the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India operate in a separate field visa-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

¶49

WRIA No. 7916 of 2025

¶50

6

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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

¶56

WRIA No. 7916 of 2025

¶57

7

¶58

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.

¶59

Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations/direction made herein above."

¶60

(11) The aforesaid judgment was thereafter challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Z.U. Ansari (supra) . Due to a difference of opinion, it was referred to a Larger Bench where it is said to be still pending.

¶61

(12) Nonetheless the aforesaid judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Z.U.Ansari (supra) has thereafter been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarita Yadav (supra) .

¶62

(13) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India and others [(2023) 14 SCC 782] has held that till decision from a Larger Bench, it would be against judicial propriety to ignore the judgment under Reference.

¶63

(14) It is also relevant that as has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner, final report has already been accepted without any challenge thereto.

¶64

(15) The aforesaid aspect has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar and others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 890 in the following terms:-

¶65

"43. At this juncture, it is imperative to further underline that the chargesheet against the appellant was issued based on the written complaint of the informant. Law is again clear to the effect that mere production of a document does not constitute proof. If chargesheet is issued on the basis of a written complaint, the author/complainant has to be produced. The decision of this

¶66

WRIA No. 7916 of 2025

¶67

8

¶68

Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen & Ors. is an authority for this proposition. Notably, in the instant case, the informant/complainant had not been examined. This, we hold is one other glaring error in the decision-making process."

¶69

(16) In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment would be clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶70

(17) Considering the aforesaid that judgment rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Z.U.Ansari (supra) has not been set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court and only Reference to Larger Bench has been made, the same would hold the field whereby this Court would be governed by the Division Bench judgment. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court clearly indicates the fact that Rules of Business, 1975 would be inapplicable in such cases and it was thereafter held that sanction of Minister referable to Business Regulations will not amount to a sanction of Governor as contemplated by Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations, 1975. The aforesaid Division Bench judgment is clearly binding upon this Court.

¶71

(18) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 04.09.2023, charge sheet dated 06.12.2023 and consequent enquiry proceedings are hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties is issued to release petitioner's unpaid salary for the period indicated here-in-above. Actual payment of the amount shall be ensured within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the authority concerned.

¶72

(19) Since the impugned disciplinary proceedings have already been quashed, all other remaining outstanding dues of petitioner shall also be paid within the aforesaid period. Keeping in view the principles of restitution, petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the outstanding dues from the date it was required to be paid to her till the date of actual payment. Such payment shall be ensured within aforesaid period of six weeks.

¶73

(20) Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their

¶74

WRIA No. 7916 of 2025

¶75

9

¶76

own costs.

¶77

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶78

November 3, 2025