Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rammurty Singh v. State Of U.P.& Another - WRIT - A No. 43883 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 21318 (18 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Civil  Misc. Writ Petition  No. 43883 of 2000

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the departmental proceedings started against the petitioner pursuant to a charge sheet dated 29th June 2000 issued to the petitioner under the covering letter dated 1st August 2000, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure 4 to this writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

A perusal of the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit shows that the following facts are not disputed.

All the charges relate to the period during which the petitioner was working as Managing Director in the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Cane Unions Federation, Lucknow, i.e., between 23rd July 1994 to 6th January 1996. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was suspended in connection with these charges at any time till the petitioner superannuated from service after attaining the age of 58 years on 31st January 1998. The charge sheet alleges that it has been issued with the aid of article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulation. The said article 351-A permits initiation of such departmental proceedings with the sanction of the Governor in respect of events which took place not more than 4 years before the institution of such proceedings. The relevant words are found in proviso (a)(ii) "shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than 4 years before the institution of such proceedings, and"

Explanation (a) of that article 351-A is also relevant and the same is reproduced below.

"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"

Because the 4 year period from 6.1.1996 when the petitioner ceased to be Managing Director, and the alleged misconducts relate to the period before that, ran out in January 2000. Thus, the charge sheet dated 29.6.2000 could not have been issued and consequently the same is liable to quashed along with consequent proceedings.

In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition, quash the charge sheet, enclosed as Annexure 4, and all consequent proceedings. The pensionary and post retiral benefits of the petitioner shall be finalised by the respondents without further delay.

Dated : December 18,  2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.