Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.933 OF 2014

Dr. RAM LAKHAN SINGH   …. PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY    ….  RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

N.V. RAMANA, J.

This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is  

filed by one Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, an incumbent of Indian Forest  

Service (1969 Batch, U.P. Cadre) who rendered services to the  

respondent State and Government of India in various positions for  

about  35  years  till  his  retirement.   The  main  contention  of  the  

petitioner  is  that  he  was  illegally  detained  by  the  respondent  

1

Page 2

authorities  after  implicating  him  in  false  vigilance  cases  and  

dishonouring  the  High  Court’s  directions.   Because  of  the  

malicious,  willful  and contemptuous acts  of  the State  and clear  

abuse of legal process, he and his family members had to suffer a  

great  ordeal  of  mental  agony  and  heavy  financial  loss  besides  

being defamed in  the society.   Hence,  he prayed this  Court  to  

express  displeasure  over  the  violation  of  his  family  members’  

fundamental  rights  and  to  direct  the  respondent  to  pay  

compensation for  the loss of  his  professional  career,  reputation  

and for causing mental agony.

2. The relevant facts as submitted by the petitioner, who argued  

his case before us in person, are that he has rendered about 35  

years service to the State of U.P. and the Government of India,  

with  an  unblemished  record.   He  became  a  Member  of  the  

National  Board  for  Wild  Life  (for  short  “NBWL”)  on  22nd  

September, 2003.  The then Chief Minister of the respondent State  

wanted the petitioner  to  take necessary  steps so as to get  the  

Benti  Bird  Sanctuary  located  at  Kunda  of  Pratapgarh  District  

denotified by the NBWL in its meeting held on 15th October, 2003.  

2

Page 3

As the petitioner did not comply with the directions, the then Chief  

Minister of Uttar Pradesh, in the guise of a complaint by the MLA  

of  his  own party  against  the petitioner,  issued directions to  the  

Director General, Vigilance Establishment of the State to initiate a  

vigilance enquiry against him.  As per the procedure envisaged for  

the  purpose  by  D.O.  Letter  No.2020/39(2)-12(5)-74,  dated   

12-09-1997  (Annexure  P-11),  before  a  case  is  sent  for  State  

Vigilance  Establishment,  the   approval  of  the  State  Vigilance  

Committee  is  a  condition  precedent,  but  the  respondent  State  

without  following  the  prescribed  procedure,  conducted  vigilance  

enquiry and removed him from his post.  The petitioner moved the  

High Court  by  Writ  Petition No.126 of  2004 to  declare that  the  

vigilance enquiry against  him was done in clear violation of  the  

prescribed  procedure.   The  High  Court  by  orders  dated  30th  

January,  2004  and  14th September,  2007  directed  the  State  

Vigilance Committee to carry out the enquiry proceedings, but the  

respondent did not comply with the directions of the High Court.

3. While that being so, Writ Petition No.2985 of 2004 was filed  

before the High Court by an advocate arraying the petitioner as  

3

Page 4

respondent  No.4  therein.   According  to  the  petitioner,  the  writ  

petition (PIL) was got purportedly filed by the advocate who was  

working in the office of the then Advocate General, making false  

averments  stating  that  the  vigilance  committee  had  already  

completed the enquiry in various issues against him. As a matter  

of fact, on the date of institution of the said writ petition, the enquiry  

against the petitioner was not even referred to the State Vigilance  

Committee.   In  the said  petition,  the  High  Court,  on 25 th June,  

2004, passed an order which, inter alia, reads thus:

“List this case on 12.02.2004, Vigilance Committee shall  carry on with the proceeding, but no final order shall be  passed.

   It  has  been  further  averred  that  the  vigilance  

committee  had  already  completed  the  enquiry  in  various issues against the respondent No.4, namely  Dr.  Ram  Lakhan  Singh  and  the  matter  is  serious  in  nature in mis-utilization of Government funds in its own  way.  Nowhere the Division Bench vide its order dated  30.01.04 had stopped the State to lodge FIR, if  prima  facie, the Vigilance Committee comes to the conclusion  that  some  cognizable  offence  is  committed  by  respondent No.4.  It was always open for the State to  lodge FIR, if prima facie, the Vigilance Committee had  come to a conclusion that some cognizable offence has  been committed by respondent No.4, it is always open  for the State to lodge an FIR, if some cognizable offence  is  found to  have  been committed  by  the  Respondent  No.4, and if it comes out from the report of the Vigilance  

4

Page 5

Committee, not only the State but also any person can  lodge an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with respect to  a cognizable offence said to have been committed by a  particular  person.   The  Division  Bench  has  never  stopped  the  State  to  lodge  an  FIR  since  the  Departmental  proceeding  can  very  well  continue  simultaneously.  

    With  the  aforesaid  observation,  this  petition  stands  

finally disposed of.”

4. Taking advantage of the order dated 25th June, 2004 passed  

by the High Court, FIR was registered against the petitioner and  

his house was raided.  The petitioner claims that in the case of  

house raid and arrest of a Member of the All India Services like  

that of the petitioner, the State Vigilance Establishment is required  

to take prior permission and approval of the Chief Secretary of the  

State, whereas in the case of the petitioner no such approval had  

been obtained.  Afterwards, the respondent obtained approval by a  

pre-dated letter on 5th July, 2004, concealing the fact of raiding the  

petitioner’s  house  on  25-06-2004  and  the  petitioner  was  finally  

arrested.  Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered against  

5

Page 6

the petitioner on the same day and the petitioner was suspended  

from his official duties.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by  

way of filing Writ Petition No.236 of 2004 and this Court permitted  

the petitioner to approach the High Court afresh.  Accordingly, the  

proceedings  were  recommenced  before  the  High  Court  in  Writ  

Petition No.126 of 2004 and finally on 30th August, 2011, the High  

Court disposed of the matter, inter alia, observing thus:

“Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate  in the presence of the petitioner Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh  and Sri J.N. Mathur, Additional Advocate General for  the State.

    The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that all  

actions and orders passed, if  any, in violation of the  Court’s order dated 30-01-2004 be declared to be null  and void and be quashed and that, in fact, the matter  was  never  referred  to  Vigilance  Committee  and  consequently, no vigilance enquiry was ever initiated  against  the  petitioner  and,  therefore,  all  actions  taken/complaints  lodged  with  the  assumption  that  vigilance  enquiry  has  been  initiated  against  the  petitioner, shall stand void and non est.  

    Sri J.N. Mathur does not dispute the aforesaid position  

and has no objection if such a direction is issued.        We have gone through the documents on record and  

we find that it is a case where the petitioner has  undergone severe agony because of the incorrect  

6

Page 7

statement  about  the  Vigilance  Committee  being  constituted  and  vigilance  enquiry  being  initiated  against him.”

6. The  petitioner  finally  submitted  that  he  was  prosecuted  

without  a  plausible  cause  and  only  by  malicious  and  willful  

intention of the respondent, he had to suffer unlawful suspension  

from the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, loss of full  

salary and retirement benefits which were withheld for a period of  

more than ten years.   For  causing him the loss of  professional  

career including that  of  the Member of  NBWL, reputation,  great  

mental  agony  and  heavy  financial  loss  besides  defaming  his  

character, the petitioner prayed for compensation.  

7. The State has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations  

made against the State and the learned senior counsel appearing  

for  the  State  submitted  that  the  arrest  and  suspension  of  the  

petitioner were done in accordance with proper procedure.  The  

prior  approval  of  the State  Vigilance Committee applies  only  in  

those  cases  where  the  Administrative  Department  recommends  

the  cases  for  investigation  and  such  prior  approval  of  State  

Vigilance  Committee  is  not  required  in  cases  as  that  of  the  

7

Page 8

petitioner  where  the  Chief  Minister  directly  orders  for  vigilance  

enquiry.   In  the  enquiry,  it  was  found  that  the  petitioner  was  

allegedly owning disproportionate assets beyond his income, as  

being a  public  servant,  such offence attracts  punishment  under  

Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  

1988.  Even the search operation by the team consisting of officers  

from  the  Vigilance  Department  including  lady  officers  was  

conducted in consonance with the rules and regulations honoring  

the human rights.  Thus, the respondent had not committed any  

illegality and there was no flouting of any orders of the Hon’ble  

High  Court  or  blatant  violation  of  fundamental  right  to  life  

guaranteed to the petitioner.  

8. Learned senior  counsel  finally  submitted that  even all  the  

retirement dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs.14.57 lakhs and  

Rs.3,00,886/- as interest on gratuity for delay has been paid.   In  

addition, the petitioner who retired on 31-12-2004 was being paid  

provisional  pension  w.e.f.  01-01-2005  till  his  final  pension  was  

sanctioned on 28-08-2015.  However, earned leave encashment of  

Rs.4,03,106/- was sanctioned on 21-02-2014, but for the payment  

8

Page 9

of  interest  on  late  payment  of  leave  encashment,  there  is  no  

provision in the rules and hence the interest could not be paid.   

9. Having  heard  the  parties  on  either  side,  we  find  that  the  

narration of the facts indicates a clear procedural lapse on the part  

of the respondent which caused mental agony and financial loss to  

the  writ  petitioner.    Though  there  is  no  material  before  us  

indicating  the  involvement  of  the  Chief  Minister  in  initiating  the  

proceedings against the petitioner for not fulfilling his request, as  

alleged  by  the  petitioner,  however,  the  initiation  of  vigilance  

proceedings  and  statements  made  before  the  High  Court  by  

officers of the respondent State led to the arrest of the petitioner  

causing  great  loss  to  him.   At  the  end  of  the  day,  as  per  the  

statement made by the respondent before the High Court and by  

the  order  of  the  Special  Judge,  Anti  Corruption  Act,  Lucknow  

(Annexure  P-31)  on  15-02-2012,  all  the  actions  against  the  

applicant have been declared as null and void.  But in the entire  

process,  the  petitioner  had  to  suffer  mental  agony  and  loss  of  

reputation in the society besides huge financial  loss.   Even the  

9

Page 10

retrial benefits have been paid to the petitioner belatedly which is  

attributable to the negligence and irresponsible act of the State.  

10. A public  servant  in  a democracy should be a guardian of  

morals.   He is  entrusted with  higher  responsibilities  of  a  public  

office  and  they  contribute  their  best  for  the  just  and  humane  

society.   We feel that for effective functioning of a democracy, the  

role  of  Executive  is  very  important.   Civil  servants  and  public  

officials are expected to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust  

and  confidence  by  demonstrating  the  high  standards  of  

professional  competence,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  by  

upholding the Constitution and rule of  law,  keeping in  mind the  

advancement of public good at all times.  Public employment being  

a public trust, the improper use of the public position for personal  

advantage is considered as a serious breach of trust.  With the  

changing  times,  the  role  of  Executive  and  expectation  of  the  

citizens in governance also underwent tremendous change.  

11. Dishonesty  and  corruption  are  biggest  challenges  for  any  

developing country.  If the public servant indulges in corruption, the  

citizens who are vigilant in all aspects take note of this seriously  

10

Page 11

and develop a sense of distress towards the Government and its  

mechanism, on a whole it sends a very alarming message to the  

society  at  large and to  the common man in  particular.   In  any  

civilized society, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the  

society and corruption is the biggest hindrance in that process.  If  

the  corrupt  public  servant  is  not  punished,  then  it  will  have  a  

negative  impact  on  the  honest  public  servants  who  will  be  

discouraged  and  demoralized.   Some  upright  officers  resist  

corruption  but  they  cannot  alone  change  the  system  which  

victimizes them through frequent punitive transfers, threat to their  

families and fabricating, foisting false cases.  

12. In  such  a  scenario,  until  and  unless  we  maintain  a  fine  

balance  between  prosecuting  a  guilty  officer  and  protecting  an  

innocent  officer  from  vexatious,  frivolous  and  mala  fide  

prosecution,  it  would  be  very  difficult  for  the  public  servant  to  

discharge his duties in free and fair manner.  The efficiency of a  

public  servant  demands  that  he  should  be  free  to  perform  his  

official duties fearlessly and without any favour.  The dire necessity  

is to fill in the existing gap by protecting the honest officers while  

11

Page 12

making the corrupt  officers realize that  they are not  above law.  

The protection to an honest public servant is required not only in  

his interest but in the larger interest of society. This Court time and  

again extended assurance to the honest and sincere officers to  

perform their duty in a free and fair manner towards achieving a  

better society.  

13. In the case on hand, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of  

the State at the time of hearing specifically indicates that the FIRs  

against the petitioner were lodged for the crimes relating to the  

petitioner’s  owning  disproportionate  assets  beyond  his  income,  

illegal mining and auction of Tendu patta leaves causing loss of  

revenue  to  Government  and  undue  gain  to  the  purchasers.  

However, except making such averments, no material in support of  

allegations leveled against the petitioner has been made available  

to  this  Court.   On the other  hand,  the order  of  the High Court  

passed  on  30th August,  2011  in  Writ  Petition  No.126  of  2004  

(Annexure  P-30),  clearly  indicates  that  the  Additional  Advocate  

General for the State did not dispute the averments made by the  

petitioner that his case was never referred to Vigilance Committee  

12

Page 13

and consequently no vigilance enquiry was ever initiated against  

him.    The High  Court  order  further  reveals  that  the Additional  

Advocate General also expressed no objection to declare that all  

actions taken and complaints lodged against  the petitioner shall  

stand void and non est in the eye of law.  Thus, in the light of the  

foregoing,  it  is  clear that  the defence taken by the State in  the  

counter  affidavit  is  only  to  justify  its  illegal  action  against  the  

petitioner,  without  producing  any  material  supporting  the  stand  

taken by them.  

14. It  appears  that  after  his  discharge  from  the  Court  

proceedings, the petitioner had written a letter to the Chief Minister  

on 12th May, 2011 seeking an amount of Rs.4½ crores towards  

compensation and damages.  Normally, this Court is reluctant in  

determining  or  granting  any  compensation  while  exercising  its  

jurisdiction under  Article  32 of  the Constitution,  but  advises the  

parties to approach the competent Courts for adjudicating those  

issues.   However,  keeping  in  view  the  peculiar  facts  and  

circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the age  

and trauma suffered by the petitioner who spent about 11 days in  

13

Page 14

jail and fought the legal battle for about a period of 10 years before  

various forums and more particularly in the absence of any proved  

charges of corruption against the petitioner, we deem it fit that a  

lump sum amount of Rs.10 lakhs be awarded as compensation to  

the petitioner on all forms.

15. Accordingly, we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay a  

lump sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of three  

months towards compensation.   

16. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.  

…………………………………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

  .……………………………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 17, 2015.  

14