The Allahabad High Court has held that initiation of departmental proceedings under Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, cannot be quashed on the ground that the delinquent employee may ultimately be awarded a minor penalty.
The court also held that after deletion of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956, in 1976, it cannot be said that only a minor penalty can be imposed for violation of the rule relating to second marriage.
The court observed,
“it is the discretion of the appointing authority depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case to award punishment for violation of Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 29 of 1956 Rules.”
It further held that,
“there is no impediment for the disciplinary authority to punish the delinquent employee with minor penalty depending the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Read also: Allahabad HC: No Indefeasible Right to Retain Duplicate Remuneration from Two Government Departments
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam passed the order on a writ petition filed by Smt Vinita Kumari, a constable in the U.P. Police, challenging the departmental charge-sheet dated March 22, 2025.
The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings initiated against her under Rule 14(1) of the 1991 Rules and a stay on the further disciplinary proceedings.
According to the facts, the petitioner joined the police service and thereafter married Durgesh Kumar Gautam, son of Ram Sumiran, without obtaining a divorce from her first husband.
The department treated the conduct as a violation of Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956 and issued the charge-sheet under Rule 14(1) of the 1991 Rules.
The petitioner argued that Rule 29(3), as it existed earlier, prescribed withholding of increments for three years as the minimum punishment for violation of sub-rules (1) and (2).
On that basis, it was contended that only a minor penalty could be imposed, and therefore, proceedings ought to have been initiated under Rule 14(2), which provides the procedure for imposing a minor penalty.
The court, however, examined the statutory provision of Rule 29 and found that Sub-rule (3) had been deleted by the U.P. Government Servant Conduct (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1976.
The amended Rule 29 thereafter contained only the prohibition against a government servant marrying again without permission and the corresponding restriction on a female government servant marrying a man who already had a wife.
The court noted that several earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioner had proceeded on the basis of the unamended Rule 29 and had not considered the effect of the 1976 amendment deleting Sub-rule (3).
Referring to those decisions, the court held, “Since all the judgments are passed without considering the effect of the amended provision by which Sub-rule (3) has been deleted, there is no binding of precedent.”
The court also considered the petitioner’s reliance on earlier decisions, including Kamaluddin Khan, Prabhat Bhatnagar, Kuber Singh, Aneeta Yadav, Smt Rajbala Sharma and other cases.
It found that the relevant amendment had either not been brought to the notice of the court or the cases had turned on their own facts.
In particular, some earlier matters involved failure of the department to establish that a second marriage had actually taken place.
On the issue of the procedure adopted by the department, the court rejected the argument that Rule 14(1) could not be invoked because only a minor punishment might ultimately be imposed.
It explained that Rule 14(1) prescribes the procedure for a major penalty but does not require the disciplinary authority to impose a major penalty merely because that procedure was followed.
The court observed that “The procedure for holding an inquiry in case of major penalty is more elaborate than in case of minor penalty.”
It added that the disciplinary authority has to determine the quantum of punishment on the basis of the evidence and circumstances of the case, “and not on the basis that inquiry was conducted whether under Rule 14 (1) or 14 (2) of 1991 rules.”
The court further clarified that if an inquiry under Rule 14(2) ultimately leads the disciplinary authority to conclude that a major penalty is warranted, the authority must proceed under Rule 14(1), “but the converse is not correct.”
The court noted further that while proceedings are initiated under Rule 14(1), “there is no impediment for the disciplinary authority to punish the delinquent employee with minor penalty depending the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Holding that the petitioner’s challenge to the charge-sheet was misconceived, the court concluded that the relief sought could not be granted.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case: Vinita Kumari vs The State of U.P. and 4 others
Case No: WRIT – A No. – 12376 of 2026
Date of Order: 28.09.2026
Status: Dismissed
