AKHILESH CHANDRA PORWAL @ A.C. PORWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY .

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.9691/2016

AKHILESH CHANDRA PORWAL

@ A.C. PORWAL APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA

THR. SECRETARY. & ORS. RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Appellant was compulsorily retired from service following

disciplinary proceedings.

2. Challenge before the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad1 failed; the writ petition2 was dismissed by a judgment and

order dated 04th March, 2016. Appellant having preferred an appeal3, the

same also stood dismissed by a judgment and order dated 11th May,

2016 of the Division Bench.

3. This appeal, by special leave granted on 23rd September, 2016, is

directed against the Division Bench’s judgment and order.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has raised three points:

(i) Mr. Amit Kumar, Additional Chief Executive Officer at Cantonment

1 High Court

2 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4181 of 2014

3 Special Appeal No.299 of 2016

Board, Kanpur had no jurisdiction to issue the order of compulsory

retirement; (ii) principles of natural justice were breached because

despite the Inquiry Officer having allowed the prayer of the appellant for

summoning Sri N. V. Satyanarayan, Navendra Nath and Neeraj Jain as

defence witnesses, he recalled such order without any reason; and (iii)

the appellant was figuring as an accused in a criminal case which

ultimately resulted in filing of a closure report and since the incident

giving rise to the First Information Report and the departmental

chargesheet, the documentary evidence and the oral evidence were the

same, the High Court ought to have set the disciplinary proceedings at

naught.

5. We have not considered it necessary to call upon the

respondents to answer.

6. Insofar as the first point is concerned, we find that Mr. Amit

Kumar had been transferred as Additional Chief Executive Officer at

Cantonment Board, Kanpur from the post of Defence Estate Officer,

Bhopal. It was due to an administrative exigency that such a transfer

had been effected. Mr. Amit Kumar joined at Kanpur without raising any

objection.

7. It is not disputed before us that the post of Defence Estate

Officer is a post higher than the post of Chief Executive Officer of the

Cantonment Board, being the appellant’s appointing authority.

8. We, therefore, hold that Mr. Amit Kumar did have the jurisdiction

to pass the order of compulsory retirement.

9. Regarding complaint of breach of natural justice, which is the

second point argued before us, we find that the appellant had not

indicated why presence of the said three persons was relevant for the

purpose of the inquiry. Besides, it was open to the appellant to produce

the said three persons in the enquiry since they were cited as defence

witnesses by him. Attempt of the appellant to seek their presence

without indicating relevance, and that too almost on the verge of close

of enquiry, was clearly an afterthought to delay the enquiry.

10. Having regard to the law laid down by the High Court at Calcutta

in paragraph 27 of its decision in A.R.S. Choudhury v. The Union of

India and Ors.4, which we do hereby endorse, the point argued on

behalf of the appellant (without demonstrating relevance of such

witnesses) lacks substance and, accordingly, is rejected.

11. Turning to the third point, we find that the appellant was

proceeded against for lack of devotion to perform his duty. That could

never have formed a charge in the criminal case. The circumstance that

the genesis of an FIR and a departmental chargesheet is the same

cannot be accepted as a ground to hold that an enquiry under the

service rules is barred. That apart, law is well settled that even acquittal

in a criminal case would not bar a disciplinary proceeding since the

standard of proof in a criminal proceeding varies from a disciplinary

proceeding.

12. Having regard to the findings recorded by the High Court in the

4 AIR 1956 Cal 662

penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment, we see no warrant

for any interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of

the Constitution of India.

13. The civil appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly,

dismissed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..........................................J.

(DIPANKAR DATTA)

...........................................J.

(SHEEL NAGU)

New Delhi;

August 11, 2026.

ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.6 SECTION III-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No.9691/2016

AKHILESH CHANDRA PORWAL @ A.C. PORWAL Appellant

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY. & ORS. Respondents

I.A. No.91221/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/

ANNEXURES

Date : 11-08-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv.

Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR

Mr. Mukul, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.

Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. V. V. V. MBNS Pattabhi Ram, Adv.

Ms. Nasadiya Singh, Adv.

Mr. B. K. Satija, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.

Mr. S. N. Terdal (aor), Adv.

Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR

Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR

Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Aniteja Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Atmaja Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. The civil appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANIK KUMAR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed order is placed on the file)