# Anuj Singh v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 228
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anuj-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-45143
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gupta and Shri Kamal Singh Yadav were
adduced. The Inquiry officer referred to the
submissions made by the Presenting
Officer as well as the charge-sheeted
officer, referred to the examination-in-chief
of Shri Brijesh Singhal who only deposed
to the effect that the file was put up before
the CEO to execute the demolition order
but the same was not executed. Similarly,
the Prosecution Witnesses Shri Kamal
Singh Yadav referred to the displeasure
expressed by the CEO with regard to nonremoval of illegal mobile towers by the
petitioner. The Inquiry Officer does not
record anywhere any statement of the
Prosecution Witnesses or any statement to
substantiate the documents proposed to be
relied upon and despite there being
evidence to the contrary by the Prosecution
Witnesses, concluded the Charge No.5 as
proved.

60. Coming to Charge No.6, which
pertained to the continuation of illegal
occupation of a part or the land situated at
Trenching ground in the cantonment board
for the period 1995 to 2013 for which the
petitioner was charged of not performing
his duties in not vacating the illegal
occupation or cultivation over the lands in
question.

61. In support of the said Charge
No.6, as many as seven documents were
proposed to be relied upon. In addition to
the said documents, the Inquiry officer
permitted, three Prosecution Witnesses and
also permitted the petitioner to adduce the
documents as well as Defense Witnesses in
support of his contention.

62. In the entire findings returned for
recording that Charge No.6 was partly
proved, he referred to the statement of the
Prosecution Witnesses namely Shri V.K.
Tyagi who did not give any statement
against the petitioner. There is no reference
to the Prosecution Witnesses Shri K.A.
Gupta, although his cross-examination has
been referred to. Thus, in the findings of
the Inquiry Officer, there was no reference
as to how and who substantiated the
documents relied upon to substantiate the
said charge and as to which part of the
statement
of
Prosecution
Witnesses
substantiated the charge levelled against the
petitioner.

63. The Inquiry Officer does not even
consider what was the nature of the duties
of the petitioner and whether he was
responsible for preventing the illegal
encroachment. In the entire findings
returned by the Inquiry Officer, there is no
whisper
of
any
evidence
either
documentary or oral to substantiate the
second part of Charge No.6 of causing
benefit to illegal occupants and causing
loss to the Cantonment Board.

64. Charge No.7 levelled against the
petitioner was held to be not proved.

65. It is relevant to mention that two
of the Prosecution Witnesses namely Shri
Piyush Gautam and Shri K.A. Gupta were
the persons who were earlier proceeded
against but were subsequently exonerated
from the charges by the Inquiry Officer
vide
order
dated
05.06.2017
and
31.07.2017.

PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY:

66. After the inquiry report was
submitted to the disciplinary authority, the
petitioner was given a liberty to file his
reply; the petitioner in terms of the said
liberty
filed
his
reply
denying
the
4 All. Anuj Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
229
allegations levelled against the petitioner
and highlighting the manner in which the
inquiry
has
been
conducted.
The
disciplinary authority passed an order
which is contained in Resolution No.188
dated
14.08.2019.
The
disciplinary
authority referred to each of the articles of
charge and in respect of each of the charges
recorded that the Investigating Officer has
gone through the submission of the chargesheeted
officer
and
has
given
the
conclusion. He further recorded that the
charge is of a serious nature and abruptly
concluded
that
the
finding
of
the
Investigating Officer are sustained and
called for no interference. A similar finding
was recorded in respect of each of the
seven charges. In respect of the judgments
cited by the charge-sheeted officer, the
disciplinary authority recorded that the
judgments cited by the charge-sheeted
officer have been considered and the same
are not relevant to the facts of the present
case and are of no help to the charged
official, and recommended the dismissal of
the petitioner with immediate effect. In
terms of the said recommendation, an order
came to be passed on 14.08.2019 whereby
an order of punishment of dismissal was
passed
against
the
petitioner
with
immediate effect.

67. It is clear from the order passed
by the disciplinary authority that the
conclusion was drawn only on the basis
of the submission of the Inquiry Officer
and there is no application of mind in
respect of the defences taken by the
petitioner
before
the
disciplinary
authority and the recording of the fact
that the judgments cited by the petitioner
are of no avail, clearly reflects the lack of
application of mind. The same by any
stretch of logic cannot be held to be a
reasoned order containing reasons and
after due application of mind by the
disciplinary authority.

PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY:

68. The petitioner preferred an
appeal taking all the grounds and
highlighting the manner in which the
inquiry has been concluded. He gave
detailed submissions in respect of each of
the charges held to be proved on the basis
of which the ultimate punishment order
was passed. He also took ground that the
order of disciplinary authority was a
mechanical order without any application
of mind.

69. The appellate authority vide its
decision in respect of first charge held
that the same does not stand a scrutiny of
law as the allegation in respect of
Bungalow No.167, Chappel Street Meerut
Cantt. Meerut stood concluded by the
order of the Delhi High Court dated
26.07.2011 and upheld by the Supreme
Court vide its order dated 14.05.2018.

70. Dealing with the arguments raised
by the petitioner before the appellate
authority, while interpreting the contention
of the appellant that he was in a
supervisory post, the appellate authority
referred to the dictionary meaning of the
word ''supervisor' and ''to supervise' and
based upon the said dictionary meaning
concluded that the supervisory capacity
includes the responsibility of necessary
technical check and reporting works in
respect of cantonment land.

71. While dealing with second to fifth
charge based upon the definition of
''supervisor' and ''to supervise' as explained
in the dictionary, the appellate authority