Pawan Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Jail Administration And Reform Lko. And

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.

7. 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:- "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 to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re- employment after retirement: Provided that -- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment -- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. 3 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding; and (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 proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (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 (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P. shall be consulted before final orders are passed. 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]. Explanation -- For the purposes of this article -- (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 (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted; (i) in the case of criminal proceedings,l on the date on which complaint is made, or a charge-sheet 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. 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."

8. From examination of the aforesaid provision, it is thus evident that 4 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 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.

9. 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.

10. The said aspect has already been considered by Supreme Court in the case of J. Ahmed (supra) in the following manner:- "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 indecisiveness. These are qualities firmness and 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 5 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 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 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 6 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 purpose of disciplinary proceedings."

11.In a similar circumstance, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Pandey (supra) has held as follows:- "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 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 in personal Court observed character or personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings. In M.M. Malhotra (supra) the Supreme Court observed:- these deficiencies "Misconduct" as stated in Batt's Law of Master and Servant (4th Edition) (at page 63) "comprised positive acts and not mere neglects or failures". The definition of the work as given in Ballentine's Law Dictionary (148th Edition) is "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except 7 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 what necessity may demand, it is a violation of definite law, a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness."

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 27, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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.

7. 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:- "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 to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re- employment after retirement: Provided that -- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment -- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. 3 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding; and (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 proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (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 (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P. shall be consulted before final orders are passed. 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]. Explanation -- For the purposes of this article -- (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 (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted; (i) in the case of criminal proceedings,l on the date on which complaint is made, or a charge-sheet 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. 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."

8. From examination of the aforesaid provision, it is thus evident that 4 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 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.

9. 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.

10. The said aspect has already been considered by Supreme Court in the case of J. Ahmed (supra) in the following manner:- "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 indecisiveness. These are qualities firmness and 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 5 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 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 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 6 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 purpose of disciplinary proceedings."

11.In a similar circumstance, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Pandey (supra) has held as follows:- "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 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 in personal Court observed character or personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings. In M.M. Malhotra (supra) the Supreme Court observed:- these deficiencies "Misconduct" as stated in Batt's Law of Master and Servant (4th Edition) (at page 63) "comprised positive acts and not mere neglects or failures". The definition of the work as given in Ballentine's Law Dictionary (148th Edition) is "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except 7 WRIA No. 6851 of 2025 what necessity may demand, it is a violation of definite law, a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness."

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 27, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench