Supreme Court - Daily OrdersState Of U.P. And Ors vs Nanhkey Singh on 6 March, 2018Bench:Ranjan Gogoi,R. Banumathi1


                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 2507 OF 2018
                              [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
                                     (CIVIL) NO.9333 OF 2015]


                         THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.              ...APPELLANT(S)

                                                VERSUS

                         NANHKEY SINGH                      ...RESPONDENT(S)

                                                 ORDER1.         Leave granted.2.         The challenge in this appeal is to

                         an order of the Division Bench of the High

                         Court of Allahabad which has affirmed the

                         order     of     the     learned       single    judge

                         interfering        with         the      order       of

                         dismissal/termination       of   the    respondent   –

                         writ     petitioner       (Nanhkey      Singh)    from

                         service    and    directing      his    reinstatement

                         with 50% back wages.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVINOD LAKHINADate: 2018.03.0917:22:25 ISTReason:23.         A charge-sheet dated 20th July, 1991

was   served      on    the        respondent          –    writ

petitioner alleging three charges, namely,

coming     late        to     office;        unauthorized

absence; and rude behaviour towards higher

authorities.      Though the respondent – writ

petitioner             had           entered                into

correspondence(s) with regard to documents

to be furnished to him, it does not appear

that he had filed any reply to the charge-

sheet.     While the matter was so pending, by

a communication dated 25th October, 1991 an

additional       charge           (charge        No.4)       was

levelled     against        the     respondent         –    writ

petitioner alleging that his entry into the

service    was    on    the        basis    of     a       forged

transfer    certificate           allegedly       issued      by

Mahatma    Gandhi       Senior       Secondary         School,

Malihabad, Lucknow showing the respondent –

writ petitioner to have studied upto Class-8.       In support of the aforesaid fourth3charge,    it     was       stated    that     verification

with the authorities of the Mahatma Gandhi

Senior Secondary School, Malihabad, Lucknow

had indicated that no such certificate was

issued     by    the       said     School     Authorities.

Though the aforesaid additional charge was

communicated          to     the     respondent      –    writ

petitioner service of the same could not be

effected    and,       naturally,       therefore,       there

was no reply to the said additional charge

by the respondent – writ petitioner.4.         The    inquiry          having     proceeded    ex

parte the Disciplinary Authority acting on

the    basis     of    the    report     of    the   Inquiry

Officer by order dated 23rd February, 1992

dismissed the respondent – writ petitioner

from     service.            However,       strangely,      by

Office Memorandum dated 29th February, 1992

issued    under       the    Uttar    Pradesh     Temporary

Government       Servant          (Service     Termination)4Regulation,          1975       the    respondent           –   writ

petitioner’s         services         were    terminated         and

in   lieu      of    one        month’s      notice     pay      and

allowances          for    the    aforesaid           period     was

granted        to         the      respondent           –       writ

petitioner.5.          Aggrieved, the writ proceedings out

of     which    this        appeal        has    arisen         were

instituted          by      the       respondent         –      writ

petitioner.6.          The learned single judge as well as

the Division Bench of the High Court took

the view that the stand of the Authority in

issuing a dismissal order and at the same

time a termination order with one month’s

notice    pay       and     allowances          had    not      been

explained.          That apart, the High Court also

took    the    view       that    in    the     criminal        case

arising       out     the       very      same    charge         the5respondent      –    writ     petitioner          had    been

acquitted.          Accordingly,         directions      were

issued to reinstate the respondent – writ

petitioner in service with 50% back wages.

Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by

the State of Uttar Pradesh.7.        We have heard the learned counsels

for the parties.8.        An         acquittal            in       criminal

proceeding, even if the said proceeding is

on the same charge(s), need not govern a

disciplinary proceeding as the standard of

proof   in   the     two    sets    of    proceedings      is

different.          In the present case, we have

looked into the order of the learned trial

Court acquitting the accused respondent –

writ    petitioner.          What   appears       from   the

said    order   is    that    in    the    said    criminal

case the respondent – writ                petitioner had6taken      a     defence     at     the       stage    of     his

examination underSection 313of the Code

of    Criminal        Procedure,      1973     that     he    had

studied in another school i.e. Surat Singh

Junior      High        School,    Salehnagar,        District

Lucknow and he had produced the certificate

from the said School.               It is broadly on the

basis      of    the     aforesaid     defence        that    the

learned trial Court thought it appropriate

to    acquit      the     accused     respondent        –    writ

petitioner         by    giving    him    the    benefit       of

doubt.9.             The defence taken by the respondent

– writ petitioner in the criminal case was

at    a        much      belated     stage.            In     the

disciplinary            proceedings      no    such    defence

was       taken.           The     respondent          –     writ

petitioner’s entry into the service was on

the basis of a certificate issued by the

Mahatma         Gandhi     Senior     Secondary        School,7Malihabad,        Lucknow          which    on       inquiry   was

found to be forged and fabricated.10.         In    the           above    conspectus       of   the

facts, the acquittal of the respondent –

writ petitioner in the criminal case can

not have any bearing on the facts of the

disciplinary proceedings wherein no defence

of    the    kind          was     taken       to     enable   the

Disciplinary           Authority          to        consider   the

matter.     In the absence of any such defence

in the disciplinary proceedings the facts

in which the acquittal of the respondent –

writ petitioner was ordered by the learned

trial Court cannot be determinative of the

correctness of charge No.4 levelled against

him in the disciplinary proceedings.11.         We, therefore, are of the view that

the High Court was clearly wrong in holding

otherwise        and       in    granting      relief     to   the

respondent             –          writ                petitioner.8Accordingly, we allow the present appeal;

set aside the orders of the High Court and

confirm the order of dismissal passed by

the Disciplinary Authority.....................,J.(RANJAN GOGOI)


                     ...................,J.(R. BANUMATHI)
NEW DELHI
MARCH 06, 20189ITEM NO.25                   COURT NO.3                SECTION XI

                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 9333/2015
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29-01-2014
(CORRECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 08-08-2014) IN SA NO. 373/2001 PASSED
BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH)

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                                    PETITIONER(S)

                                    VERSUS

NANHKEY SINGH                                           RESPONDENT(S)

Date : 06-03-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
           HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI


For Petitioner(s)            Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Adv.Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s)
                             Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR

            UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R

                   Leave granted.The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

          order.[VINOD LAKHINA]                         [ASHA SONI]
              AR-cum-PS                         BRANCH OFFICER[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]