# Anand Kumar Asthana v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 165
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7124 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-kumar-asthana-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52012
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 311(2) - UP Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
7 - Punishment - Opportunity of hearing -
Documentary
evidence
and
list
of
witnesses was not served - Charges were
not so grave in nature, which could lead to
the major punishment - Effect - Major
punishment imposed - Validity challenged
- Held, the charges framed, should be
precised and clear and the chargesheet
alongwith
copy
of
the
documentary
evidence and the list of witnesses, if any,
should be served upon the charged
government servant - Show cause notice
cannot be a proof of any misconduct,
unless a decision is taken, while affording
the
opportunity
of
hearing
to
such
employee - Though the noting dated 2907-2021, is not an order and even the same
has never been served upon the petitioner
and therefore, that cannot be treated as
documentary proof against the petitioner.
(Para 21, 22 and 27)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Anand Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
165

19. .......

20.
As
discussed
above,
'reformative theory of punishment' is to be
adopted and for that reason, it is necessary
to impose punishment keeping in view the
'doctrine of proportionality'. It appears from
perusal of impugned judgment that sentence
awarded by learned trial court for life term
is very harsh keeping in view the entirety of
facts and circumstances of the case and
gravity of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as
discussed above, has held that undue
harshness should be avoided taking into
account
the
reformative
approach
underlying in criminal justice system. "

27. Considering the evidence in its
entirety, we are of the view that punishment
of life under Section 376 IPC to the accused
appellant is not warranted, and ends of
justice would be met if the minimum
punishment of 7 years is awarded to the
accused appellant under Section 376 IPC.
To that extent we modify the judgment and
order of the court below.

28. For the reasons and discussions
held above, this appeal succeeds in part.
While conviction of accused appellant under
Section 376 and 452 IPC is sustained, his
conviction under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act
and 323 IPC is set aside. The punishment
imposed upon accused appellant under
Section 452 is maintained, while under
Section 376 IPC is modified to 7 years
rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of
Rs.50,000/-. On failure to pay fine, the
accused appellant shall undergo default
sentence of 6 months. Punishments shall run
concurrently.

29. Mrs. Abhilasha Singh, who has
appeared for the High Court Legal Services
Authority, shall be entitled to payment of
her fee, as per rules.
30. Appeal, accordingly, stands
disposed of.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 165
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 7124 of 2023

Anand Kumar Asthana ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shishir Jain, Lakshyadeep Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Ajay Kumar Singh

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 311(2) - UP Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
7 - Punishment - Opportunity of hearing -
Documentary
evidence
and
list
of
witnesses was not served - Charges were
not so grave in nature, which could lead to
the major punishment - Effect - Major
punishment imposed - Validity challenged
- Held, the charges framed, should be
precised and clear and the chargesheet
alongwith
copy
of
the
documentary
evidence and the list of witnesses, if any,
should be served upon the charged
government servant - Show cause notice
cannot be a proof of any misconduct,
unless a decision is taken, while affording
the
opportunity
of
hearing
to
such
employee - Though the noting dated 2907-2021, is not an order and even the same
has never been served upon the petitioner
and therefore, that cannot be treated as
documentary proof against the petitioner.
(Para 21, 22 and 27)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

1. Anant R. Kulkarni Vs Y.P. Education Society &
ors.; (2013) 6 SCC 515

2. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & ors. Vs
B. Karunakar & ors.; (1993) 4 SCC 727

3. Haryana Financial Corporation & anr. Vs
Kailash Chandra Ahuja; (2008) 9 SCC 31

4. Delhi Development Authority Vs Hello Home
Education Society; (2024) 3 SCC 148

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shishir Jain, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra
Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing
Counsel,
Sri
Pankaj
Patel,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, for
Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi.

2. Under challenge is the impugned
punishment order dated 24-08-2023 passed
by the opposite party no. 1 and the charge
no. 1 of the chargesheet dated 28-12-2021.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that
the petitioner was appointed as Junior
Engineer on daily wage basis in Lucknow
Development Authority on 01-01-1988 and
thereafter, his services were regularized and
he was transferred to Varanasi Development
Authority, Varanasi(hereinafter referred to
as, 'VDA'). When the petitioner was posted
as Junior Engineer Enforcement (Nagwan
Ward)
surprisingly,
on
21-07-2021,
inspection of various roads in Nagwan Ward
was conducted by the Vice Chairman, VDA
and
allegedly,
unauthorized
building
constructions were found in progress and
thereafter, a show cause notice dated 22-072021, was issued to the petitioner and the
petitioner submitted reply to the show cause
notice,
on 28-07-2021. Thereafter,
a
departmental
enquiry
was
instituted,
wherein the charges were framed and the
chargesheet dated 28-12-2021 was served
upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted
reply to the chargesheet and the enquiry
proceeding was concluded and the enquiry
report was sent to the disciplinary authority,
whereafter, issuing the show cause notice,
the disciplinary proceeding was concluded
and the final punishment order was passed
on 24-08-2023.

4. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the chargesheet
contains three charges and so far as the
charge no. 1 is concerned, it finds mention
that the same is framed on the basis of the
show cause notice dated 22-07-2021, though
the same was replied, but, the alleged noting
dated
29-07-2021,
has
never
been
communicated to the petitioner, wherein,
it is mentioned that the report with respect
to
the
work
of
the
petitioner
is
'unsatisfactory'. He further argued that the
Enquiry Officer, ignoring the request of
the petitioner for furnishing the copy of
the order dated 29-07-2021, proceeded in
the matter and even the same has
repeatedly been sought not only from the
Enquiry Officer but,to the Disciplinary
authority as well, though the same was
never served upon the petitioner.

5. Adding his arguments, he submits
that the petitioner has also taken specific
plea in paragraph nos. 17 & 26 of the writ
petition, which has not been controverted in
specific terms, in the Counter Affidavits
filed by VDA as well as by the State and
therefore, it is an admitted fact that the order
dated 29-07-2021, has never been served
upon the petitioner, thus, the whole
disciplinary
proceeding
including
the
chargesheet, vitiates in the eyes of law.
5 All. Anand Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
167

6. Further contended that the nature of
the order is as such, which cannot be the
basis of the charge no. 1 and even the same
would be of no avail, if relied upon.

7. In support of his contentions, he has
placed reliance on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, on the case reported in
(2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 515, Anant
R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P.Education Society
and Others, and has referred paragraph no.
31 of the abovesaid Judgment, which is
quoted hereinunder :-

31.The conclusion reached by the
Division Bench that the Tribunal and the
learned Single Judge had found that there
was a defect in the manner in which the
enquiry was held, and therefore there was no
question of it recording a finding on merit to
the effect that charges levelled against the
appellant were not proved, is also not
sustainable in law. It is always open for the
Court in such a case, to examine the case on
merits as well, and in case the court comes
to the conclusion that there was in fact, no
substance in the allegations, it may not
permit the employer to hold a fresh enquiry.
Such a course may be necessary to save the
employee
from
harassment
and
humiliation."

8. Referring the aforesaid, he submits
that the Hon'ble Apex Court in abovesaid
case has held that it is always open for the
court to examine the case on merits and in
case, the court comes to the conclusion that
there was in fact no substance in the
allegations, it may not permit the employer
to hold a fresh enquiry.

9. Further reliance is placed on the
Constitutional Bench Judgment reported in
(1993)4 Supreme Court Cases, 727,
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad
and Others Vs. B.Karunakar and Others
and has referred paragraph no. 28 of the said
Judgment, which is quoted hereinunder :-

"28. The position in law can also
be looked at from a slightly different angle.
Article 311(2) says that the employee shall
be given a "reasonable opportunity of being
heard in respect of the charges against him".
The findings on the charges given by a third
person like the enquiry officer, particularly
when they are not borne out by the evidence
or are arrived at by overlooking the
evidence
or
misconstruing
it,
could
themselves constitute new unwarranted
imputations. What is further, when the
proviso to the said Article states that "where
it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose
upon him any such penalty, such penalty
may be imposed on the basis of the evidence
adduced during such inquiry and it shall not
be necessary to give such person any
opportunity of making representation on the
penalty proposed", it in effect accepts two
successive stages of differing scope. Since
the penalty is to be proposed after the
inquiry, which inquiry in effect is to be
carried out by the disciplinary authority (the
enquiry officer being only his delegate
appointed to hold the inquiry and to assist
him), the employee's reply to the enquiry
officer's report and consideration of such
reply by the disciplinary authority also
constitute an integral part of such inquiry.
The second stage follows the inquiry so
carried out and it consists of the issuance of
the notice to show cause against the
proposed penalty and of considering the
reply to the notice and deciding upon the
penalty. What is dispensed with is the
opportunity of making representation on the
penalty proposed and not of opportunity of
making representation on the report of the
enquiry officer. The latter right was always
there.
But
before
the
Forty-second
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Amendment of the Constitution, the point of
time at which it was to be exercised had
stood deferred till the second stage viz., the
stage of considering the penalty. Till that
time, the conclusions that the disciplinary
authority might have arrived at both with
regard to the guilt of the employee and the
penalty to be imposed were only tentative.
All that has happened after the Forty-second
Amendment of the Constitution is to advance
the point of time at which the representation
of the employee against the enquiry officer's
report would be considered. Now, the
disciplinary authority has to consider the
representation of the employee against the
report before it arrives at its conclusion with
regard to his guilt or innocence of the
charges.

10. Referring the aforesaid, he submits
that the provision of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution
of
India,
speaks
about
reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of charges against a delinquent
employee and therefore, it is well settled that
reasonable opportunity of hearing to a
delinquent employee is 'hallmark' test of any
disciplinary proceeding against a delinquent
employee, under the constitutional scheme'.

11. Further, he has placed reliance on
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Haryana Financial Corporation
and Another Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja,
reported in (2008)9 Supreme Court
Cases, 31, and has referred paragraph no. 21
of the said Judgment, which is quoted herein
under :-

"21. From the ratio laid down in
B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993
SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] it is
explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural
justice requires supply of a copy of the
inquiry officer's report to the delinquent if
such inquiry officer is other than the
disciplinary authority. It is also clear that
non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is
in the breach of natural justice. But it is
equally clear that failure to supply a report
of the inquiry officer to the delinquent
employee would not ipso facto result in the
proceedings being declared null and void
and the order of punishment non est and
ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee
to plead and prove that non-supply of such
report had caused prejudice and resulted in
miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to
satisfy the court on that point, the order of
punishment cannot automatically be set
aside."

12. The constitutional Bench has laid
down that doctrine of natural justice,
requires supply of copy of enquiry report to
the delinquent employee, and non supply of
such report would amount to breach of
principle of natural justice.

13. Concluding his arguments,he
submits that the charge no. 1 mentioned in
the chargesheet, is hit by the settled
proposition of law as well as the procedure
prescribed
in
the
U.P.Government
Servant(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999
and therefore, the impugned order dated 2408-2023 including the whole disciplinary
proceeding may be quashed.

14. Refuting the aforesaid contentions,
learned counsel for VDA submits that since
the petitioner was having the charge of the
area of Nagwan Ward, wherein the
allegation for unauthoritzed construction of
building was initially raised and thereafter a
show cause notice was given, thus this fact
was well within the knowledge of the
petitioner, however now the petitioner is not
posted in the domain of VDA and therefore,
so far as any exigency regarding DPC is
5 All. Anand Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
169
concerned, the same is not required to be
addressed by VDA.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the
State has also opposed the contentions and
submitted that once, it was found that the
petitioner is involved, while permitting
illegal construction in Nagwan Ward, he was
suspended and the charges were framed
against him and thereafter conducting a full
fledged enquiry, the enquiry report was
submitted and the disciplinary authority,
after providing the due opportunity of
hearing, even according the opportunity of
personal hearing, concluded the disciplinary
proceedings and the punishment order was
passed
and
therefore,
there
is
no
erroneousness or ambiguity in the order
impugned.

16. Adding his arguments, he submits
that infact it is an admitted position that two
charges were not found proved, but, in so far
as the charge no. 1 is concerned, after due
discussion in the enquiry, it was found
proved partly, on the basis of the order dated
29-07-2021. He added that the order dated
29-07-2021 was passed on the reply
submitted by the petitioner to the show
cause
notice
dated
22-07-2021
and
therefore, it cannot be said that the same was
not in the knowledge of the petitioner, thus,
submission is that no interference is
warranted.

17. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and after perusal of material
placed on record, it transpires that the
petitioner has approached this court
while taking a plea that the final
punishment order dated 24-08-2023 is
passed without serving a copy of the
noting dated 29-07-2021, which is said
to be transcribed on the show cause
notice dated 22-07-2021.

18. The Disciplinary Authority,
initially proceeded with the procedure for
imposing the major penalty and issued
undated chargesheet alongwith covering
letter dated 28-12-2021. The contents of the
chargesheet are extracted as under :-

आरोप-पत्र

श्री आनन्द कुमार अस्थाना,

अवर अभियन्ता, सम्प्रतत तनलम्म्प्ित,

वाराणसी ववकास राधिकरण , वाराणसी।

वाराणसी ववकास प्राधिकरण, वाराणसी के
अन्तर्गत वार्ग नर्वाां में प्रिानमांत्री आवास योजना
कुरूहुआ के आस-पास एवां कायग स्थल तक पहुुँच
मार्ग, अखरी रोर्, चुनार रोर्, अवलेशपुर, धचतईपुर
एवां अन्य मुख्य मार्र्ों पर 100 से अधिक सांख्या
में अनाधिकृत भवनों का ननमागण कायग र्नतमान
पाये जाने के सांबांि में।

आरोप

संखयााः-1

वाराणसी ववकास प्राधिकरण, वाराणसी
के अांतर्गत वार्ग नर्वाां में प्रिानमांत्री आवास
योजना कुरूहुआ के आस-पास एवां कायगस्थल तक
पहुुँच मार्ग, अखरी रोर्, चुनार रोर्, अवलेशपुर,
धचतईपुर एवां अन्य मुख्य मार्ों पर 100 से अधिक
सांख्या में अनाधिकृत भवनों का ननमागण कायग
र्नतमान पाया र्या। आपका यह कृत्य कमगचारी
आचरण ननयमवाली के ववपरीत है। इस प्रकार
प्रथम दृष्ट्या आप द्वारा अपने पदेन दानयत्वों
का ननवगहन नहीां ककया र्या, जो उ०प्र० सरकार
कमगचारी आचरण ननयमावली 1956 का उल्लांघन
है, जजसके ललए आप दोषी है। उक्त अनाधिकृत
ननमागणों के सम्बन्ि में कारण बताओां नोटिस
पत्राांक सांख्या-119/वव०पा०/ उपा०/2021/22, टदनाांक
22.07.2021 जारी ककया र्या एवां उक्त के कम में
सभी स्थलों का शत-प्रनतशत ननरीक्षण कर आख्या
प्रस्तुत ककये जाने के ननदेश टदये र्ये थे, ककन्तु
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
एक माह बीत जाने के पश्चात् भी आख्या प्रस्तुत
नहीां की र्यी। अवैि ननमागण कतागओां द्वारा ककये
जा रहे अवैि ननमागण को बाधित करने में। रोकने
में, सौपें र्ये कायों/दानयत्वों का उधचत प्रकार से
ननवगहन न ककये जाने के फलस्वरूप प्राधिकरण
की छवव िूलमल हुई है एवां अवैि ननमागण होने के
कारण प्राधिकरण को सम्भाववत ववत्तीय क्षनत
पहुुँपाये जाने के प्रथम दृष्टिया दोषी पाये जा रहे
हैं एवां कायों के प्रनत घोर लापरवाही व अवैि
ननमागण में सांललप्तता प्रतीत होती है, जो उ०प्र०
सरकारी कमगचारी आचरण ननयमावली 1956 का
उल्लांघन है।

पठनीय-अभिलेखीय साक्ष्याः-

कारण बताओां नोटिस पत्राांक सांख्या-119/
वव० प्रा०/ उपा०/2021-22 टदनाांक 22.07.2021 की
छायाप्रनत ।

आरोप

संखया-2

कायागलय
पत्र
सांख्या-490/ वव०
प्रा०
उपा०/2019-20, टदनाांक 31.01.2020 द्वारा टदनाांक
29.01.2020 को बबना पूवग अवकाश स्वीकृत करायें
कायागलय से अनुपजस्थत रहने पर कारण बताओां
नोटिस जारी ककया र्या, जो उ०प्र० सरकारी
कमगचारी आचरण ननयमावली-1956 का उल्लांघन
है, जजसके ललये आप दोषी है।

पठनीय अभिलेखीय साक्ष्याः-

कारण बताओां नोटिस पत्र सांख्या -490/ वव०
प्रा०/ उपा०/2019-20 टदनाांक 31.01.2020 द्वारा
टदनाांक 29.01.2020 की छायाप्रनत ।

आरोप संखया-3

टदनाांक 18.02.2020 को आहूत मानधचत्र
अनुभार् की समीक्षा बैठक के दौरान मानधचत्र
स्वीकृत हेतु लजम्बत प्रकरणों की समीक्षा करने
पर यह तथ्य सांज्ञान में आया कक मानधचत्र की
पत्रावललयो पर लम्बे समयान्तराल में कोई
कायगवाही सम्पाटदत नहीां की र्यी. जजसके सांबि
में आपको कारण बताओां नोटिस पत्र सांख्या-
515/वव० प्रा०/उपा०/ 2019-20. टदनाांक 19.02.2020
जारी ककया र्या। उक्त के सांबांि में आप द्वारा
टदनाांक 24.02.2020 को जवाब टदया र्या, जो
सांतोषजनक नहीां पाया र्या। तद्कम में कायागलय
पत्र सांख्या-683/वव० प्रा०/अधि०/2019-20, टदनाांक
07.03.2020 द्वारा कठोर चेतावनी ननर्गत की
र्यी। इस प्रकार आप द्वारा र्म्भीर लापरवाही
एवां कूिरधचत कृत्य एवां ववभार्ीय कतगव्यों के
ननवगहन के पदेन दानयत्वों के प्रनत लापरबाही एवां
उदासीनता पररलक्षक्षत होती है. जो उ०प्र० सरकारी
कमगचारी आचरण ननयमावली -1956 का उल्लांघन
है, जजसके ललये आप दोषी है।

पठनीय-अभिलेखीय साक्ष्य-

1. कारण बताओां नोटिस पत्र सांख्या -
515/वव० प्रा०/ उपा०/2019-20, टदनाांक छायाप्रनत
19.02.2020की

2. श्री अस्थाना द्वारा कारण बताओां नोटिस
टदनाांक 19.02.2020 के सम्बन्ि में टदनाांक
24.02.2020को प्रस्तुत उत्तर की छायाप्रनत

3. कठोर चेतावनी पत्र सांख्या-683/वव० प्रा०
/
अधि०/2019-20. टदनाांक
07.03.2020 की
छायाप्रनत ।आपसे यह अपेक्षा की जाती है कक
आप आरोप पत्र प्राप्त होने की नतधथ से
अधिरोवपत

आरोप के सांबांि में अपना ललखखत उत्तर 15
टदन से 01 माह के अन्दर जाांच अधिकारी को
अननवायग रूप से प्रस्तुत कर देर्े तथा प्रस्तुत
ककये ललखखत कथन में यह भी स्पष्टि रूप से
अांककत करेंर्े कक आप आरोप पत्र में उजल्लखखत
ककसी साक्ष्य का परीक्षण करना चाहते हैं अथवा
ककसी साक्षी का प्रनत परीक्षण करना चाहते हैं या
अपने बचाव में अपनी तरफ से ककसी साक्षी या
5 All. Anand Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
171
साक्ष्य को प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं, तो उनका नाम
व पता तथा वववरण भी स्पष्टि रूप से ललखखत
कथन में ही इांधर्त करेंर्े। यटद आप स्वयां सुनवाई
के कम में जाुँच अधिकारी से मौखखक सुनवाई का
व अवसर भी प्राप्त करना चाहते तो उसे भी
स्पष्टितः अपने ललखखत उत्तर में इांधर्त करेंर्े।
जाांच अधिकारी द्वारा आरोप के समथगन में साक्ष्य
प्रस्तुत ककये जायेर्ें, जजसमे मौखखक एवां
अलभललखखत साक्ष्य सजम्मललत होंर्ें। मौखखक या
ललखखत साक्ष्य होने के समय जाांच अधिकारी
द्वारा अपचारी अलभयांता को र्वाहों से प्रनत
परीक्षण करने का अवसर भी टदया जायेर्ा। जाांच
अधिकारी द्वारा अपचारी अलभयांता को साक्ष्य के
अांतर्गत टदये र्ये अननयलमताओां की स्वीकायगता
के सम्बन्ि में आपवत्त प्रस्तुत करने का अवसर
भी टदया जायेर्ा। जाांच में साक्ष्य लेने की
कायगवाही पूणग हो जाने के पश्चात जाांच अधिकारी
अपचारी अलभयांता को अपने बचाव में मौखखक /
ललखखत कथन प्रस्तुत करने हेतु स्थान, समय व
नतधथ ननिागररत करते हुए अपचारी अलभयन्ता को
यथोधचत सूधचत करते हुए अपचारी अलभयन्ता का
उत्तर प्राप्त ककया जायेर्ा, जजसमें मौखखक व
अलभलेखीय साक्ष्य सजम्मललत होंर्े।

उक्त के अनतररक्त अपचारी अलभयांता को
यह भी ननदेलशत ककया जाता है कक यटद व उक्त
ननिागररत अवधि में अधिरोवपत आरोप के सम्बन्ि
में अपना ललखखत उत्तर जाांच अधिकारी को प्रस्तुत
नहीां करता है तो यह माना जायेर्ा कक उसे आरोप
के सम्बन्ि में कुछ भी नहीां कहना है तथा आरोप
स्वीकायग है और तदोपरान्त दण्र्न प्राधिकारी ।
अनुशासननक प्राधिकारी द्वारा जाांच आख्या का
र्ुण दोष के आिार पर परीक्षण कर तथा सम्यक
ननणगय लेकर आदेश प्रख्यावपत कर टदया जायेर्ा।

श्री राज्यपाल की आज्ञा से

आरोप पत्र अनुमोददत ।
(जांच अधिकारी)
अपर आयुक्त (रशासन)
रयागराज मण्डल, रयागराज।

(दीपक कुमार)

रमुख सधचव,

आवास एवां शहरी ननयोजन ववभार्

उ०प्र० शासन

19. After serving the aforesaid
chargesheet, the reply was submitted by the
petitioner
and
the
Enquiry
Officer
concluded the enquiry proceedings vide
enquiry report dated 20-10-2022, which is
evident that out of total three charges, charge
nos. 2 & 3 were not found proved and the
charge no. 1 is found proved, partly.

20. A bare reading of charge no. 1 is
apparent that the documentary evidence in
support of charge no. 1 is letter dated 22-072021, which is a show cause notice. The
show cause notice dated 22-07-2021 is
quoted in verbatim as under :-

वाराणसी ववकास राधिकरण, वाराणसी

119/वव.रा./उपा./2021-22

ददनांक: 22/07/2021
कारण िताओ नोदिस

श्री आनंद कुमार अस्थाना, अवर अभियंता
रवततन (नगवां वाडत)।

अिोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा 21.07.2021 को औचक
स्थल तनरीक्षण के दौरान आपके अिीनस्थ
कायतक्षेत्र वाडत नगवा में रिानमंत्री आवास योजना
कुरुहुआ के आस-पास एवं कायतस्थल तक पहुंच
मागत, अखरी रोड, चुनार रोड, अिलेशपुर, धचत्तईपुर
एवं अन्य मुखय मागों पर 100 से अधिक संखया
में िवनों का तनमातण कायत गततमान पाया गया।
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
रथम दृष्ट्या ये समस्त तनमातण कायत राधिकरण
से अनुमतत राप्त ककए बिना अवैि रूप से
गततमान रतीत हो रहे है। आपके कायतकाल में
अिीनस्थ नागवां वाडत / क्षेत्र में अवैि तनमातणों
में अरत्याभशत वृद्धि हुयी है तथा वाडत । रवततन
अवर अभियंता के रूप में आप द्वारा भशकायतों
एवं अवैि तनमातणों पर रिावी कायतवाही कर
तनस्तारण नहीं ककया जा रहा है। आपके उपरोक्त
कृत्य से स्पष्टि है कक रवततन अवर अभियंता के
रूप में अपने वविागीय कततव्यों एवं दातयत्यवों के
तनवतहन एवं उच्चाधिकाररयों द्वारा रदत्त ददशा
तनदेशों के अनुपालन में लापरवाही एवं घोर
उदासीनता िरती गयी है, जो अत्यंत खेद का ववषय
है तथा उत्तर रदेश सरकारी सेवक आचरण
तनयमावली 1956 में ननटहत प्राविानों के ववपरीत
है।

इस
सांबांि
में
03
टदवस
में
अिोहस्ताक्षरी के समक्ष प्रकरणवार स्थलीय
ननरीक्षण के साथ कृत वैिाननक्क कायगवाही की
आख्या एवां इस आशय का ललखखत प्रत्यावेदन
प्रस्तुत करें कक आपके ववरुद्ि अपने ववभार्ीय
कतगव्यों
एवां
दानयत्वों
के
ननवगहन
एवां
उच्चाधिकाररयों द्वारा प्रदत्त टदशा ननदेशों के
अनुपालन में लापरवाही एवां घोर उदासीनता
बरतने के कारण क्यों न अनुशासनात्मक
कायगवाही सांजस्थत कर दी जाये। सांलग्नक ननमागण
स्थलों के फोिोग्राफ्स ।
(ईशा दुहेन)
उपाध्यक्ष।
टदनाांकः

रत्रांकाः/वव.रा./उपा/2021-22

रततभलवप - तनम्रभलखखत को सूचनाथत एवं
आवश्यक कायतवाही हेतु रेवषत।

1. सधचत।

2 रिारी अधिकारी-अधिष्टठान।

3. जोनल अधिकारी- नगवां ।

4. गाडत फाइल।
(ईशा दुहेन)

उपाध्यक्ष।

21. From perusal of the show cause
notice dated 22-07-2021,it is evident that the
charges are not so grave in nature, which
could lead to the major punishment, though,
it has been pleaded by the opposite parties
that on the show cause notice itself, a note
was transcribed that 'the work of the
petitioner is unsatisfactory', to which
petitioner has vehemently controverted and
stated that aforesaid noting was never
intimated/served upon the petitioner. For the
other reasons also, the show cause notice
cannot be a proof of any misconduct, unless
a decision is taken, while affording the
opportunity of hearing to such employee,
more so, noting 'unsatisfactory' was also not
intimated to the petitioner, as the opposite
parties have failed to substantiate it, before
this court.

22. So far as the disciplinary proceedings
instituted against the petitioner under the
U.P.Government
Servant(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules 1999'), are concerned, that has not been
adhered to, as the Rule 7 of Rules, 1999, clearly
prescribes that the charges framed, should be
precised and clear and the chargesheet alongwith
copy of the documentary evidence and the list of
witnesses, if any, should be served upon the
charged government servant. The Rule 7((iii) &
(v) of the Rules, 1999, are quoted hereinunder :-

"(iii) The charges framed shall be
so precise and clear as to give sufficient
indication to the charged Government
5 All. Anand Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
173
servant of the facts and circumstances
against him. The proposed documentary
evidence and the name of the witnesses
proposed to prove the same alongwith oral
evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the
charge-sheet.

(v) The charge-sheet, alongwith
the copy of the documentary evidences
mentioned therein and list of witnesses and
their statements, if any shall be served on the
charged Government servant personally or
by registered post at the address mentioned
in the official records. In case the chargesheet could not be served in aforesaid
manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by
publication in a daily newspaper having
wide circulation:

Provided
that
where
the
documentary
evidence
is
voluminous,
instead of furnishing its copy with chargesheet, the charged Government servant shall
be permitted to inspect the same before the
Inquiry Officer."

23. The provisions are very clear in it's
terms that documentary evidences and list of
witnesses mentioned in the chargesheet,
must be given to the delinquent, but, the said
noting/order dated 29-07-2021, was never
served to the petitioner, though the same is
very basis of charge no. 1 as on the basis of
the same, the Enquiry Officer came to the
conclusion that the chrage no. 1 is partly
proved.

24. Undisputedly, the said order dated
29-07-2021, is a noting/internal order, as it
was not communicated to the petitioner and
prior to passing of this order,no opportunity
of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

25. It's so long settled that a person,
who is required to answer a charge, must
know not only the accusation, but, also the
testimony by which the accusation is
supported and further, he must be given the
copy
of
the
documentary
evidence
mentioned in support of the charge. Further
non supply of the documents/evidences
mentioned in the chargesheet absolutely
vitiate the enquiry proceedings.

26. This court is also aware about the
Judgment and order, rendered in the case of
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Hello
Home Education Society, reported in (2024)
3 Supreme Court Cases, 148, wherein, in
paragraph no. 19.7, it has been held as
follows:-

"19.7. The issue relating to
internal notings as to whether it would
confer any right or not has been adequately
dealt with and settled by series of judgments
of this Court. It is well settled that until and
unless the decision taken on file is converted
into a final order to be communicated and
duly served on the party concerned, no right
accrues to the said party. Mere notings and
in-principle approvals do not confer a
vested
right.
Relevant
extracts
from
judgments of this Court in this regard are
being reproduced hereunder.

(a) Bachhittar Singh [Bachhittar
Singh v. State of Punjab, 1962 SCC OnLine
SC 11 : AIR 1963 SC 395] : (AIR p. 398,
paras 9-10)

"9. The question, therefore, is
whether he did in fact make such an order.
Merely writing something on the file does
not amount to an order. Before something
amounts
to an
order
of
the
State
Government two things are necessary. The
order has to be expressed in the name of the
Governor as required by clause (1) of
Article 166 and then it has to be
communicated. As already indicated, no
formal order modifying the decision of the
Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until
such an order is drawn up the State
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government cannot, in our opinion, be
regarded as bound by what was stated in the
file. ?

10. ? Thus it is of the essence that
the order has to be communicated to the
person who would be affected by that order
before the State and that person can be
bound by that order. For, until the order is
communicated to the person affected by it, it
would be open to the Council of Ministers to
consider the matter over and over again
and, therefore, till its communication the
order cannot be regarded as anything more
than provisional in character."

27. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in very
clear words, has held that merely writing
something on the file does not amount to
an order. In fact, in the present matter, on
the basis of the noting dated 29-07-2021,
the Enquiry Officer had come to the
conclusion that since the noting says that
the
work
of
the
petitioner
is
unsatisfactory and therefore, he found
that the charge no. 1 is partly proved,
though the noting dated 29-07-2021, is
not an order and even the same has never
been served upon the petitioner and
therefore, that cannot be treated as
documentary proof against the petitioner
and thus, the Enquiry Officer as well as
the Disciplinary Authority are not only
mistaken, but, they have ignored the
settled proposition of law.

28. In view of the abovenoted
submissions and discussions, the writ
petition, is hereby allowed.

29. Consequently, the impugned
punishment order dated 24-08-2023 is
hereby quashed.

30. With all respect at my command
to the settled law, there seems to be no
substance in the charge no. 1, as the same
is based only on the show cause notice
and a noting on the file thereof, which
cannot
be
treated
as
documentary
evidence as such, the same is of no
consequence, therefore, for saving the
petitioner from further humiliation and
harassment, the charge no. 1 of the
chargesheet dated 28-12-2021, is also
hereby quashed.

31. Consequences shall follow.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 174
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 17751 of 2019

Jitendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Deepak Dwivedi,
Sheshnath Bhardwaj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Police Officers of
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 8(2)(b) -
Dismissal - Charge of submitting fake
Caste Certificate - No enquiry was held
saying that it is not reasonably practicable
- Permissibility - Held, no reasons emerge
as to why the competent authority has not
found it reasonably practicable to hold an
inquiry against the petitioner - The
reasons for denial of inquiry must be
supported by document and other related
material - High Court quashed the