STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus NAND KISHORE SHUKLA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 11-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
' 
NANO KISHORE SHUKLA AND ANR. 
MARCH 11, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 : Rule 24. 
Service law-Employee-Misconduct-Enquiry-Alleged sale and pur-
x 
chase of properties without permission of authority-Charge proved in respect c 
of-Witnesses with regard to other charges not cross-examined by 
employee-Consequently Enquiry Officer gave a finding that all charges were 
proved-Order of removal passed by disciplinary authority-Setting aside 
of-Order by High Court-Held not justified in the circumstances of the case. 
Doctrine of proportionality-Imposition of punishment-It is for dis- D 
ciplinary authority to consider the nature of punishment-Proportionality of 
punishment cannot be gone into by Court. 
'-! 
Punishment-Removal-Effect of-Held it does not cast stigma. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4722 of E 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.91 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 9550 of 1989. 
T.N. Singh, Kamlendra Misra, Sudhanshu and R.B. Misra for the F 
)/ 
Appellants. 
Raju Rama Chandran, T. Mahipal and Pradeep Misra for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the A>lahabad H 
219 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A High Court, Lucknow.Bench made on September 5, 1991 in W.P. No. 9550 
of 1989. The respondent had challenged the order of his removal from 
service. He was appointed on December 4, 1973 as a Clerk in the Collec-
torate, Hardoi on temporary basis. He was removed from service in the 
year 1977 and, ultimately, by orders of the Court he was reinstated in the 
B service on July 12, 1984. By proceedings dated May 25, 1987, he was kept 
under suspension on disciplinary grounds and enquiry was conducted in 
that behalf Though opportunities were given to the respondent, he did not 
avail it. He asked for production of 21 witnesses for cross-examination. The 
enquiry officer considered that nine witnesses were relevant in respect of 
charges and that respondent was called upon to cross-examine those 
C witnesses but respodent had not chosen to cross-examine those witnesses. 
Consequently by proceedings dated December 5, 1987, the enquiry officer 
submitted his resport holding that the 5 charges were proved against the 
respondent and recommended for his dismissal from service. The discipli-
nary authority passed the order on January 6, 1988 removing the respon-
D dent from service. The representative petition before the Service Tribunal 
resulted in dismissal. His writ petition was allowed by the High Court. 
Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
It is seen that since the respondent did not cooperate in the enquiry, 
the witnesses could not be examined with regard to charges 1, 3 and 5. 
E Charge 2 relates to sale of properties worth Rs. 91,000 to the private 
persons and also purchase of the properties worth Rs. 10,000, which are 
admitted facts. According to the explanation given by the respondent, he 
sought oral permission and pursuant to the oral permission, he had sold 
the properties. With regard to his capacity to purchase the properties 
F worth Rs. 10,000, · he had stated that pursuant to his reinstatement in 
service, out of payment of arrears of a sum of Rs. 40,000 he had purchased 
the properties worth Rs. 10,000. According to him, his father had pur- • 
chased the property in his name and, therefore, he had to execute the sale 
deed to the third party as a vendor. This was brought to the notice of the 
authorities and that oral permission was given. The question is : whether 
G oral permission is valid in law ? 
Rule 24 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 is as 
under: 
H 
"24. Movable, immovable and valuable property - (1) No Govern-
• 
STATEv. N.K. SHUKLA 
221 
men! servant shall except with the previous knowledge of the A 
appropriate authority, acquire or dispose of any immovable 
property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise, 
either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family; 
Provided that any such transaction conducted otherwise than 
through a regular and reputed dealer require the previous sanction 
of the appropriate authority. 
(2) A Government servant who enters into any transaction con-
cerning any movable property exceeding in value, the amount of 
B 
hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.