DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH versus STATE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 263, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 263 
DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE GOVERNMENT OF UTIAR PRADESH THROUGH 
CHIEF SECRETARY 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 933 of 2014) 
NOVEMBER 17, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
COMPENSA T/ON: Writ petitioner was a member of the C 
All India Services and rendered services to the respondent 
State and Government of India in various positions for about 
35 years - FIR was filed against petitioner and house raid 
conducted on the ground of owning of disproportionate assets 
beyond income, illegal mining and auction of Tendu Patta D 
leaves causing loss of government revenue and.undue gain 
to the purchasers - Plea of petitioner that the State Vigilance 
Establishment ought to have taken prior permission and 
approval of Chief Secretary of the State for arresting and 
raiding the house which was not obtained - Petitioner was E 
a/so suspended from his official duties -
Claim for 
compensation for loss of professional career, reputation and 
for causing mental agony on the ground that he was illegally 
detained by the authorities after implicating him in false 
vigilance cases and dishonouring the High Court's directions F 
- Held: The case of petitioner was never referred to Vigilance 
Committee and consequently no vigilance enquiry was ever 
initiated against him - There was no evidence in respect o"f 
offence alleged to have been committed by petitioner -
Petitioner had to suffer mental agony and loss of reputation G 
in the society besides
huge financial loss - Normally, 
Supreme Court is reluctant in determining or granting any 
compensation while exercising its jurisdiction ul Article 32 of 
the Constitution, b~t advises the parties to approach the H 
263
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A competent Courts for adjudicating those issues - However, 
in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and . 
the age and trauma suffered by the petitioner who spent about 
11 days in jail and fought the legal battle for about a period 
of 10 years before various forums and more particularly in 
B the absence of any proved charges of corruption against the 
petitioner, a lump sum amount of Rs. 10 lakhs awarded as 
compensation to the petitioner on all forms. 
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: 
C 
Role of Executive/Civil Servant/Public Servant -
Discussed. 
Public employment - Public servant and corruption -
Discussed. 
D 
Disposing of the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. A clear procedural lapse on the part of 
the respondent had caused mental agony and financial 
loss to the writ petitioner. As per the statement made by 
E the respondent before the High Court and by the order 
of the Special Judge, Anti Cor:ruption Act, 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 
F besides huge financial loss. Even the retiral benefits 
were paid to the petitioner belatedly which was 
attributable to the negligence and irresponsible act of 
the State. [Para 9] [272-D-G] 
G 
2. 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 
H effectiveness by upholding the Constitution and rule of
DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF 
265 
U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY 
law, keeping in mind the advancement of public good at A 
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 B 
underwent tremendous change. 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 and develop a sense of distress towards the C 
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 0 
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 E 
the system which victimizes them through frequent 
punitive transfers, threat to their families and fabricating, 
foisting false cases. In such a scenario, until and unless 
a fine balance is maintained between prosecuting a guilty 
officer and protecting an innocent officer from vexatious, 
F 
frivolous and
mala fide prosecution, it would be very 
difficult for the public servant to discharge his duties in 
free and fair ma'nner .. The efficiency of a public servant 
demands that he should be free to perform his official 
duties fearlessly and without any favour. The dire G 
I 
necessity is to fill in the existing gap by protecting the 
honest officers while 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 H
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A extended assurance to the honest and sincere officers 
to perform their duty in a free and fair manner towards 
achieving a better society. [Paras 10-12] [273-A-H; 274-
A-B] 
B 
3. In the case on hand, the counter affidavit filed on 
behalf of the State at the time of hearing specifically 
indicates that the Fl Rs against the petitioner were lodged 
for the crimes relating to the petitioner's owning 
disproportionate assets beyond his income, illegal 
C 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 allegati_ons leveled against the 
petitioner has been made available to this Court. On the 
D · other hand, the order of the High Court 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 and 
consequently no vigilance enquiry was ever initiated 
E against him. [Para 13] [274-C-F] 
4. Normally, this Court is reluctant in determining 
or granting any compensation while exercising its 
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, but 
F 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 jail and 
G 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, it is deemed fit that a lump sum amount of 
H Rs.10 lakhs be awarded as compensation to the 
petitioner on all forms. [Para 14] [275-B-D]
DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF 
267 
U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
A 
933 of 2014 
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 
Petitioner-In-person 
Dinesh Dwivedi, Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Abhishek 
Chaudhary for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B. 
c 
N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. 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 
D 
his retirement. The main contention of the petitioner is that he 
was illegally detained by the respondent 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 
E 
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 F 
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 G 
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 H
268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A get the Benti Bird Sanctuary located at Kunda of Pratapgarh 
District denotified by the NBWL in its meeting held on 15th 
October, 2003. 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 
B 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)-7 4, dated 12-09-1997 (Annexure 
P-11 ), before a case is sent for State Vigilance Establishment, 
C 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 hi.s post. The petitioner mov_ed the High · 
D 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 
E 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 
F petitioner as 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 
G a·gainst 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 25th June, 2004, passed an order 
which, inter alia, reads thus: 
H
DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF 
269 
U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY [N. V. RAMANA, J.]. 
"List this case on 12.02.2004, Vigilance Committee shall A 
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 8 
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 c 
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 D 
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 Committee, not only the 
State but also any person can lodge an FIR und.er Section E 
154 Cr. P. C. with respect to a cognizable offel'lce 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." 
F 
4. Taking advantage of the order dated 251h June, 2004 
passed by the High Court, FIR was registe_red against the G 
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 H
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
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. 
B Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered against the 
petitioner on the same day and the petitioner was suspended 
from his official duties. 
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this 
C 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 Wrrt Petrtion No.126 of 2004 and finally 
on 301h August, 2011, the High Court disposed of the matter, 
D 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 
E 
State. 
F 
G 
H 
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
DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF 
271 
U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
find that it is a case where the petitioner has A 
undergone severe agony because of the incorrect 
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 
B 
full salary and retirement benefits which were withheld for a c 
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. 
D 
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 
E 
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 petitioner F 
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 G 
Act, 1988. Even the sean:;;h 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 
H
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 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 
C on 21-02-2014, but for the payment 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 
o 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 
E 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. Atthe end of the day, 
as per the statement made by the respondent before the High 
F 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 
G financial loss. Even the 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 
H of morals. He is entrusted with higher responsibilities of a
DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF 
273 
U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY[N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
public office and they contribute their best for the just and A. 
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 
B 
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 C 
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 D 
corruption, the citizens who are vigilant in all aspects take note 
of this seriously 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 E 
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 
F 
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 G 
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 H
274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A a public servant demanqs 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 making the corrupt officers realize that they are 
not above law. The protection to an honest public servant is 
B 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. 
C 
13. In the case on hand, the counter affidavit filed on 
behalf of the State at the time of hearing specifically indicates 
that the Fl Rs 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 
D 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 301h August, 2011 
E 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 and 
F 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 
G 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. 
H 
14. It appears that after his discharge from the Court
DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF 
275 
U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
proceedings, the petitioner had written a letter to the Chief A 
Minister on 121h May, 2011 seeking an amount of Rs.4 % 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 B 
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 jail and fought the legal battle for 
about a period of 10 years before various forums and more C 
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. 
D 
16. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 
E 
Devika Gujral 
Petition disposed of.