# Anil Kumar Garg v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 765
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-12
- **Bench:** Satyendra Singh Chauhan, Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-garg-v-state-of-u-p-44385
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

opportunity of cross-examination-Charges treated as proved without leading evidence-Enquiry vitiatedDismissal order quashed-Matter remitted for fresh enquiry from stage of reply to charge-sheetReinstatement to be considered by disciplinary authority.

Case Law discussed:
Chamoli District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2265 of 2011
Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1964) 3 SCR 616
State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain, (1972) 4 SCC 304
State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236
ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727
Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 21
Syndicate Bank v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, (2006) 3 SCC 150

Conclusion:
The Court held that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in clear breach of the
settled principles of natural justice. The department failed to prove the charges by leading evidence, did not
produce original documents, and denied the petitioner opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Consequently,
the dismissal order dated 02.11.2012 and corrigendum dated 12.11.2012 were quashed. The respondents
were directed to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of reply to the charge-sheet within four months, and
the disciplinary authority was left free to consider reinstatement in accordance with law.

## Text

8 All. Anil Kumar Garg Vs State Of U.P.
765
(2016) 8 ILRA 765
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Service Bench No.- 124 Of 2013

Anil Kumar Garg ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Om Prakash Srivastava, Virendra Kr. Dubey

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Headnote:
Para -
Departmental enquiry-Violation of principles of natural justice-Non-production of original documents-No
opportunity of cross-examination-Charges treated as proved without leading evidence-Enquiry vitiatedDismissal order quashed-Matter remitted for fresh enquiry from stage of reply to charge-sheetReinstatement to be considered by disciplinary authority.

Case Law discussed:
Chamoli District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2265 of 2011
Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1964) 3 SCR 616
State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain, (1972) 4 SCC 304
State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236
ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727
Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 21
Syndicate Bank v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, (2006) 3 SCC 150

Conclusion:
The Court held that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in clear breach of the
settled principles of natural justice. The department failed to prove the charges by leading evidence, did not
produce original documents, and denied the petitioner opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Consequently,
the dismissal order dated 02.11.2012 and corrigendum dated 12.11.2012 were quashed. The respondents
were directed to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of reply to the charge-sheet within four months, and
the disciplinary authority was left free to consider reinstatement in accordance with law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.
&
Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.)
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 2.11.2012
communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 8.11.2012 by means of which the petitioner has
been dismissed from service while he was working on the post of Executive Engineer as well as
corrigendum issued on 12.11.2012.

3. The facts in short giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed
as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in PWD department on 5.12.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted on the
post of Executive Engineer on 26.9.2006 and continued to work as Executive Engineer in PWD
department at Jaunpur from 26.9.2006 to 23.11.2008. Vide order dated 21.11.2008, the petitioner
was placed under suspension and thereafter he was served with a charge sheet on 3.8.2009. When
the documents demanded by the petitioner were not supplied, he submitted interim reply. The
enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted report on 23.3.2010 wherein it was found that no
charge was established against the petitioner, but the enquiry officer further advised that a fresh
charge sheet may be issued framing the charges in the correct manner. The petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.1426 (SB) of 2009, Anil Kumar Garg Vs. State of U.P. and others, challenging the
validity of the suspension orders dated 21.11.2008 and 13.7.2009. Said writ petition was finally
disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2009 with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to take a
decision in the matter within a period of one month. It was also directed by this Court that in
respect of second suspension order dated 13.7.2009, enquiry should be concluded within three
months and decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of
receipt of the report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner served certified copy of the order dated
12.10.2009 within the stipulated time but the enquiry was not concluded within a period of of three
months. When nothing was done, the petitioner again filed Writ Petition No.94 (SB) of 2010 and
again challenged the suspension orders dated 21.11.2008 and 13.7.2009. The State Government
passed order on 19.2.2010 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges relating to the first
suspension order dated 21.11.2008. Enquiry report dated 23.3.2010 was also submitted exonerating
the petitioner from all the charges in the matter pertaining to the second suspension order dated
13.7.2009 but with an advise to issue amended charges sheet. Writ petition No.94 (SB) of 2010 was
finally decided by this Court on 27.4.2010. Certain clarification was also sought as there was
typing error in the order dated 27.4.2010 and this Court passed order dated 7.7.2010 quashing the
second suspension order dated 13.7.2009 and directed that the opposite party shall issue a charge
sheet within a period of four weeks and complete the enquiry within three months thereafter. The
petitioner informed the State Government about the order dated 27.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition
No.94 (SB) of 2010. The petitioner served certified copy of the aforesaid orders dated 27.4.2010
and 7.7.2010 immediately after the orders were passed. The State Government passed order on
7.6.2010 that decision has been taken for amending the charge sheet and the petitioner was served
with the amended charge sheet dated 8.6.2010 on 21.6.2010. The petitioner raised objection to the
issuance of the amended charge sheet by means of letter dated 25.6.2010. The State Government
passed order on 17.8.2010 stating that the enquiry shall continue against the petitioner as the earlier
enquiry report was erroneous. The petitioner thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.2006 of 2010 in
which notices were issued and then the State Government passed order reinstating the petitioner by
8 All. Anil Kumar Garg Vs State Of U.P.
767
cancelling the second suspension order dated 13.7.2010. The petitioner thereafter moved a
representation demanding 26 documents after receiving the amended charge sheet dated 8.6.2010
on 21.6.2010. The enquiry officer fixed first date of enquiry in pursuance to the amended charge
sheet as 7.8.2010. As the photostat documents attached with the amended charge sheet were denied
to the petitioner and they were also alleged to be fabricated documents, the petitioner made a
request for summoning the original documents and for verification of the photostat copies of the
documents attached with the charge sheet. In the enquiry proceedings dated 7.8.2010, as the
objection made by the petitioner was not very clear that the relied upon documents were fictitious,
fabricated and manipulated, the petitioner moved a fresh representation on 11.8.2010 bringing his
objection on record. The presenting officer filed a reply on 26.8.2010 before the enquiry officer
dealing with the representation of the petitioner dated 5.7.2010 and 11.8.2010. In response to the
reply of the presenting officer dated 26.8.2010, the petitioner made a representation stating the
relevancy of the documents demanded by him. The enquiry officer wrote a letter dated 31.12.2010
to 18 defence witnesses. The enquiry officer on the 5th date of enquiry i.e. 4.1.2011, accepted
statements of 14 persons including the presenting officer Sri S.K. Goel, but the same were not
recorded and neither any examination in chief was made nor the petitioner was afforded any
opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. On the next date of enquiry i.e. 6.1.2011, the presenting
officer Sri S.K. Goel was examined. The petitioner raised objection that Junior Engineer, who had
allegedly received 33 Tankers was the material witness to accept or deny the charges. Similarly,
the transport agency or the transporter was also a material witness to indicate as if the said 33
Tankers were ever transported from the refinery but the same was not received. The enquiry officer
summoned Sri R.K. Prasad, Deputy Manager, Consumer Cell, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., who
appeared before the enquiry officer on 11.1.2011 and he clearly stated that the Indian Oil
Corporation has not made any verification regarding signatures of the Junior Engineer who
allegedly received supply. The next date of enquiry was fixed as 14.1.2011, on which date no
enquiry was made but the enquiry officer and the presenting officer wrote proceedings discussing
the evidence relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to submit his defence in writing
by means of letter dated 17.1.2011. The enquiry officer and the presenting officer concluded the
proceedings and discussed the extraneous charges not shown in the charge sheet. The enquiry
officer submitted enquiry report on 25.1.2011, which was served on the petitioner vide letter dated
28.2.2011. The petitioner was required to submit his representation within fifteen days. As the
enclosures attached with the enquiry report were not supplied to the petitioner, therefore, he made a
representation on 23.3.2011 for supplying the same. The petitioner was thereafter supplied the
enclosures of the enquiry report on the instructions of the State Government on 25.4.2011. On
2.5.2011, the petitioner submitted representation to the enquiry report supplied through show cause
notice. Thereafter, information was sought by the State Government from the U.P. Public Service
Commission. The information of the U.P. Public Service Commission was received by the State
Government and thereafter dismissal order dated 2.11.2012 has been passed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry has not been held by
following the principles of natural justice. Comments, which were obtained by the enquiry officer
from the presenting officer, were not supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to
submit reply to the same. The petitioner submitted reply to the said comments and thereafter the
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

enquiry was concluded. No evidence was adduced to prove the charges before the enquiry officer.
The enquiry officer presumed proving of the charges only on the basis of the comments of the
presenting officer. Learned counsel submits that though date was fixed, but no enquiry was ever
held as contemplated under law and neither the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross
examine any of the prosecution witnesses. None of the witnesses were adduced from the side of the
petitioner though there was specific denial of the documents, which were annexed along with the
charge sheet saying they were forged and fabricated documents, but in spite of that no effort was
made to get the documents proved in accordance with law. Learned counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Chamoli District Co-Operative
Bank Ltd. through its Secretary/Mahaprandhak & Anr. v. Raghunath Singh Rana & Ors.,
Civil Appeal No.2265 of 2011 dated 17th May, 2016.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that enquiry officer has held the enquiry in
accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice. He has fixed various dates and
R.K. Prasad, Deputy Manager, Consumer Cell, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was also examined to
prove the receiving by the Junior Engineer, but in the statement he made a specific statement that
he does not recognize the signature of the Junior Engineer.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. What should have been the process of holding the enquiry as contemplated under law
after the amended charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted reply to
the amended charge sheet. He had also denied all the documents, which were filed along with the
charge sheet in photostat form as being forged and fabricated. The petitioner demanded from the
enquiry officer that the original documents be produced. The original documents were never
produced. Comments from the presenting officer were obtained by the enquiry officer and the
petitioner was asked to submit reply to the said comments. After reply submitted by the petitioner
to the comments, the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and assumed the charges to be proved
against the petitioner. The petitioner in paragraph-36 of the writ petition pleaded as under:-

"36. That the enquiry officer did not fix any date requiring the presenting officer to
prove the charges and the documents relied upon. The enquiry officer took all the charges already
proved. The enquiry officer wrote a letter dated 31.12.2010 to 18 persons cited as defence
witnesses. It was mentioned in the letter dated 31.12.2010 that the same is summoning letter in
view of the demand of the petitioner for submitting his defence. 04.01.2011 was fixed as a next date
for appearing all the 20 witnesses. A true copy of the letter dated 31.12.2010 written by the enquiry
officer behind the back of the petitioner calling 20 persons from the list of defence witnesses
without proving the charges and conducting any enquiry in this regard, is being filed herewith as
Annexure No.25 to this writ petition.

8. Reply to paragraph-36 of the writ petition has been given in paragraph-69 of the counter
affidavit, which reads as under:-
8 All. Anil Kumar Garg Vs State Of U.P.
769
"69. That the avertments contained in para 36 of the writ petition regarding the
letter dated 31/12/2010 calling the witnesses and fixing the date 04/01/2011 are not disputed.
However, the rest of averments made in para under reply are false and misleading hence, denied in
view of the facts already referred hereinabove."

9. Once the opposite party has admitted the position as stated in paragraph-36 of the writ
petition, then nothing remains to be elaborated and neither the opposite party can come forward to
state that enquiry was held in accordance with law. Law in regard to holding of enquiry has been
settled by the Apex Court in the case of Raghunath Singh Rana (supra) wherein it has been held as
under:-

"19. The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary
has long been established. This Court has held that even there are no specific statutory rule
requiring observance of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary. Certain
ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court
in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in (1964) 3 SCR 616 has
laid down following:-

"... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee
proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses
are examined - ordinarily in the presence of the employee - in respect of the charges, (iii) the
employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity
to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and
(v) the inquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report."

20. The Apex Court again in State Bank of India Vs. R.K. Jain and Ors., reported in
(1972) 4 SCC 304 held that if an inquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice or if
no reasonable opportunity was provided to the delinquent to place his defence, it cannot be
characterized as a proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice. In
paragraph 23, the following was laid down:-

"......As emphasised by this Court in Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Its
Workmen, (1964) 3 SCR 601, the termination of an employee's service must be preceded by a
proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Therefore, it is evident
that if the inquiry is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice or if no reasonable
opportunity was provided to a delinquent to place his defence, it cannot be characterized as a proper
domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice......"

21. The Apex Court in State of Uttranchal & Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 236 had occasion to examine various contours of natural justice which need to be
specified in a departmental inquiry. The Apex Court noticed earlier judgments where principles
were laid down as to how inquiry is to be conducted. It is useful to refer paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12,
13 and 15, which are to the following effect:-
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

".....9. Before analyzing the correctness of the above submissions, it is useful to
refer various principles laid down by this Court as to how enquiry is to be conducted and which
procedures are to be followed.

10. The following observations and principles laid down by this Court in
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen and Anr. [1964] 3 SCR 652 are relevant:

"... ... In the present case, the first serious infirmity from which the enquiry suffers
proceeds from the fact that the three enquiry officers claimed that they themselves had witnessed
the alleged misconduct of Malak Ram. Mr. Kolah contends that if the Manager and the other
officers saw Malak Ram committing the act of misconduct, that itself would not disqualify them
from holding the domestic enquiry. We are not prepared to accept this argument. If an officer
himself sees the misconduct of a workman, it is desirable that the enquiry should be left to be held
by some other person who does not claim to be an eye- witness of the impugned incident. As we
have repeatedly emphasised, domestic enquiries must be conducted honestly and bona fide with a
view to determine whether the charge framed against a particular employee is proved or not, and so,
care must be taken to see that these enquiries do not become empty formalities. If an officer claims
that he had himself seen the misconduct alleged against an employee, in fairness steps should be
taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. How the
knowledge claimed by the enquiry officer can vitiate the entire proceedings of the enquiry is
illustrated by the present enquiry itself. ... .....

..... It is necessary to emphasise that in domestic enquiries, the employer should
take steps first to lead evidence against the workman charged, give an opportunity to the workman
to cross-examine the said evidence and then should the workman be asked whether he wants to give
any explanation about the evidence led against him. It seems to us that it is not fair in domestic
enquiries against industrial employees that at the very commencement of the enquiry, the employee
should be closely cross- examined even before any other evidence is led against him. In dealing
with domestic enquiries held in such industrial matters, we cannot overlook the fact that in a large
majority of cases, employees are likely to be ignorant, and so, it is necessary not to expose them to
the risk of cross-examination in the manner adopted in the present enquiry proceedings. Therefore,
we are satisfied that Mr. Sule is right in contending that the course adopted in the present enquiry
proceedings by which Malak Ram was elaborately cross-examined at the outset constitutes another
infirmity in this enquiry."

11) In ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727, it was held:

"(1) Where the enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the
disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority
arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, enquiry officer's report and the delinquent
employee's reply to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose
penalty on the basis of its conclusions. If the disciplinary authority decides to drop the disciplinary
proceedings, the second stage is not even reached.
8 All. Anil Kumar Garg Vs State Of U.P.
771
While the right to represent against the findings in the report is part of the
reasonable opportunity available during the first stage of the inquiry viz., before the disciplinary
authority takes into consideration the findings in the report, the right to show cause against the
penalty proposed belongs to the second stage when the disciplinary authority has considered the
findings in the report and has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the employee and
proposes to award penalty on the basis of its conclusions. The first right is the right to prove
innocence. The second right is to plead for either no penalty or a lesser penalty although the
conclusion regarding the guilt is accepted. It is the second right exercisable at the second stage
which was taken away by the Forty-second Amendment. The second stage 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 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 in respect of the charges.

* * *

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. The proviso to Article 311(2) 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.

Hence, when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent
employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary
authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard
to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself
against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer's report before the
disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the
employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice."
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12) In Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State 1Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and
Another, (1999) 2 SCC 2, it was held:

"34. But in cases where the termination is preceded by an enquiry and evidence is
received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the
officer and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order will be
violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out the
truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and not merely to gather evidence for a future
regular departmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be treated as based or founded
upon misconduct and will be punitive. These are obviously not cases where the employer feels that
there is a mere cloud against the employee's conduct but are cases where the employer has virtually
accepted the definitive and clear findings of the enquiry officer, which are all arrived at behind the
back of the employee -- even though such acceptance of findings is not recorded in the order of
termination. That is why the misconduct is the foundation and not merely the motive in such cases."

13) In Syndicate Bank and Others vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, (2006) 3 SCC
150, the following conclusion is relevant:

"18. In our view, non-supply of documents on which the enquiry officer does not
rely during the course of enquiry does not create any prejudice to the delinquent. It is only those
documents, which are relied upon by the enquiry officer to arrive at his conclusion, the non-supply
of which would cause prejudice, being violative of principles of natural justice. Even then, the nonsupply of those documents prejudice the case of the delinquent officer must be established by the
delinquent officer. It is well-settled law that the doctrine of principles of natural justice are not
embodied rules. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice,
one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural
justice."

15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge:

i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the
enquiries do not become empty formalities.

ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the
enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be
the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry
Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is
assigned to some other officer.

(iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence
against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the
8 All. Anil Kumar Garg Vs State Of U.P.
773
witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/ delinquent be asked whether he wants to
lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.

(iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on
the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all
connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any."

10. After considering the dictum laid down by the Apex Court and also considering the
facts on record, we are of the definite opinion that the enquiry was not held in accordance with law
by following the principles of natural justice. The charges were never proved by the department
before the enquiry officer as required under law. The petitioner was also not given opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses though he has specifically denied the documents and has also made a
specific endorsement on the documents themselves being fabricated.

11. In the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the dismissal order dated 2.11.2012 as well as corrigendum issued on 12.11.2012
and the opposite party is directed to hold enquiry from the stage of filing of reply to the charge
sheet by fixing date, time and place after giving opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the
enquiry and conclude the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. It is further provided that the disciplinary authority may take a decision
in respect of reinstatement of the petitioner as contemplated under law.

12. The petitioner is directed to co-operate in the enquiry.
----------
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 774
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR. J.

Application U/S 482 No.- 20282 Of 2016

Kripa Shankar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Arvind Sikaria

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Headnote: Para-
Where the FIR does not contain the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act-namely that the
accused is not a member of SC/ST and that intentional caste-based insult or intimidation was made within
public view-the continuation of proceedings under the said provision amounts to abuse of process of law and
is liable to be quashed. However, where prima facie material exists for offences under the IPC, the High Court
in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not quash the charge sheet at the pre-trial stage.

Case Law discussed:
Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Procedural History:
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 292 of 2016
arising out of Case Crime No. 733 of 2015, under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act, P.S. Khanpur, District Ghazipur, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.

Decision:
Application partly allowed.
Proceedings relating to offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act quashed.
Prayer for quashing proceedings under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC rejected. Trial court directed to
proceed in accordance with law.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harsh Kumar)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.)

1. Learned A.G.A. states that in view of facts and circumstances of the case by issuing
notices to opposite party no.2 no useful purpose would be served and the application may be heard
and disposed of without issuing notices to the opposite party no.2.