Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2061 (ALL)

RADHA MOHAN YADAV v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-05-27

RAJAN ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard. 2. The petitioner herein is a Constable in the Police Department. He was sent on deputation to the Trade Tax Department for three years. While five months still remained for completion of his tenure on deputation, he was repatriated to his parent Police Department. A request was made on his behalf to the concerned officials for extension of his deputation for further two years whereupon he was allowed to continue in the borrowing department by the grace of the officers concerned. Now, even on said term having come to an end the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for continuance of his deputation for further five years. Prior to approaching the Court a representation was submitted by his wife directly to the Chief Minister who also happens to the Home Minister dealing with the Police Department requesting for the continuance for two years in the teeth of Rule 27-A of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. 3. Sri K.S. Chauhan, Special Secretary in the Home Department is present in pursuance to the earlier orders of this Court dated 5.5.2016 and 25.5.2016 which are quoted hereunder: “5.5.2016: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the letter of Shri Bachhoo Lal in the Home Department of the Government of U.P. Dated 25.1.2016. Let the learned Standing Counsel seek instructions in the matter from the Principal Secretary, Home as to the circumstances under which such a letter was sent to the concerned department asking it to send a recommendation for extension of deputation of the petitioner a Head Constable in the Trade Tax Department as ultimately this is the discretion of the latter department based on its own needs. The instructions shall also be sought as to whether any representation at the behest of the petitioner or on his behalf by his relative could be submitted for such extension of deputation before the Head of the State in view of the Rule 27-A of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. List this case on 24.5.2016 as fresh.” “25.5.2016: Supplementary-affidavit filed in Court is taken on record. Inspite of order dated 5.5.2016 no instructions have been provided to the learned Standing Counsel, instead four weeks time has been sought in the matter. This Court takes exception to such a request being made. List this case on 24.5.2016 as fresh.” “25.5.2016: Supplementary-affidavit filed in Court is taken on record. Inspite of order dated 5.5.2016 no instructions have been provided to the learned Standing Counsel, instead four weeks time has been sought in the matter. This Court takes exception to such a request being made. Put up this case day-after-tomorrow i.e. on 27.5.2016, when an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary in the Home Department shall appear before the Court and submit an explanation in terms of order dated 5.5.2016. Let the original records relating to the case be also produced before the Court tomorrow. Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges.” 4. Sri Chauhan placed before the Court an extract of the Manual of Government Orders page No. 79 and placed reliance upon paragraphs 315 and 316(1) thereof, which reads as under: ^^315- turk ls izkIr gksus okyh lHkh ;kfpdkvksa vkSj f'kdk;rh i=ksa ij ;FkklaHko rRijrk rFkk lgk;rk djus dh Hkkouk ls dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg,A ;fn fdUgha ekeyksa esa ;Fkkspr dkj.kksa ls fdlh ;kfpdk esa dh x;h izkFkZuk dks aLohdkj djuk vFkok dfFkr f'kdk;r dks nwj djuk ;k mldk ifj'kks/ku djuk laHko u gks rks f'kdk;rdrkZ dks bldh lwpuk fouez Hkk"kk esa ns nh tk;sA 316¼1½- xSj ljdkjh O;fDr;ksa] laLFkkvksa] laxBuksa rFkk lfefr;ksa ls izkIr gksus okys lHkh i=ksa ds mŸkj ns fn;s tk;sAß 5. This was relied to support the action of the Under Secretary in sending the letter dated 25.1.2016 to the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Head Quarters, Allahabad, on receipt of the representation of the petitioner’s wife which was sent directly to the Chief Minister who also happened to the be the Home Minister i.e. the Minister of the Department under which the petitioner is functioning, so as to call for a clear report alongwith recommendation within two days. 6. 6. On being confronted with the provision of Rule 27-A read with explanation to Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 Sri Chauhan could not put forth any reasonable answer as to why such a representation directly submitted to the Chief Minister/Home Minister by the wife of a Government servant was mechanically sent by the State Government to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) without scrutinizing as to whether such a representation was entertainable and maintainable in the teeth of Rule 27-A read with explanation to Rule 27 of the aforesaid Rules of 1956 which have been made under the proviso under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 7. The reliance placed on extract of the Manual of Government Orders which has been placed before the Court by the Special Secretary is misconceived. A bare perusal of the said provisions discloses that these do not apply in the case at hand where the wife of a Government servant has directly submitted a representation to the Chief Minister/Home Minister in gross violation of the aforesaid Rules of 1956, that too seeking extension of her husband’s deputation in the Trade Tax Department. Paragraph 315 of the Manual of Government Orders refers to petitions and complaints from the public and the requirement to take appropriate actions thereon. This has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. Paragraph 316 refers to letters received from non-Government persons, institutions, organizations, unions and committees. By no stretch of imagination the letter/representation by a wife of a Government servant falls within the purview of paragraph 316. In fact it is hit by Rule 27A read with Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Rule 27A and 27 are quoted hereinbelow: “27-A. No Government servant shall whether personally or through a member of his family, make any representation to Government or any other authority except through the proper channel and in accordance with such direction as the Government may issue from time to time and explanation to Rule 27 shall apply to this Rule. 27. No Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring whether himself, personally or through a member of his family, any political or other outside influence to bear upon any question relating to his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service. 27. No Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring whether himself, personally or through a member of his family, any political or other outside influence to bear upon any question relating to his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service. [Explanation.—An act done by the wife or husband, as the case may be, or any member of the family of a Government Servant and falling within the purview of this rule, shall be presumed to have been done at the instance, or with the connivance, of the Government Servant concerned, unless the contrary shall have been proved.]” 9. One can understand this procedure being adopted in matters covered by paragraphs 315 and 316 of the Manual of Government Orders and there can be no two views that such complaints or applications or letters by the public at large or by non-Government persons, institutions etc. may be acted upon promptly through concerned departments of the Government, when the same are received either from the office of the Chief Minister or the Home Minister or any other Minister, however, what is not acceptable is that a representation submitted by a wife of a Government employee directly to the Chief Minister/Home Minister pertaining to a matter relating to his service that too far extension of his deputation should be processed at the level of the Secretariat in the Government in such a manner mechanically asking a report thereon in two days with recommendations thereon, virtually in the teeth of Rule 27-A. Any such processing has to be done keeping in mind the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, and not bereft thereof, irrespective of the fact that from where such letter has been received, as, the Rules which have been made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are binding upon the Government. In fact the State Government Secretariat ought to have informed the higher echelons about the prohibitions contained in Rule 27-A or it could have rejected the same in view of the said Rule. 10. The petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to remain in the borrowing department at his will and no such writ for extension of his deputation for five years can be issued. 11. 10. The petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to remain in the borrowing department at his will and no such writ for extension of his deputation for five years can be issued. 11. Let this order be placed before the Chief Secretary, U.P., as also the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., to ensure that in future U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 are complied to the hilt. 12. For the reasons aforesaid this writ petition is dismissed.