# Arun Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 526
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-25
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6749 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54673
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 8
& 9 - Departmental enquiry - No charge
was found proved - However, direction for
re-enquiry
was
made
before
taking
decision by the Disciplinary Authority -
Validity challenged - Intervention before
taking decision by Disciplinary Authority -
Permissibility - Held, the Director General
has got no say or authority to request the
Disciplinary Authority to direct for reinquiry.
This
power
vests
with
the
Disciplinary Autority under Rule 9 to agree
with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or
not to agree with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer - High Court set aside the
impugned order for re-enquiry. (Para 10
and 12)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

## Text

526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government Order and the aforesaid minor
penalty was considered by the opposite
parties prior to his subsequent promotion
on the post of Superintending Engineer and
therefore also would loose its efficacy
subsequently.

30. In view of discussion made
hereinabove, it is evident that the opposite
parties have erred in declaring to petitioner
unsuitable for promotion on the post of
Chief Engineer (Civil) by means of
recommendation dated 05.07.2024.

31. In view thereof, the recommendations
of the Departmental Promotion Committee
dated 05.07.2024 to the extent it reduces
petitioner's marks obtained by petitioner by 10
marks and declaring him unsuitable on that
ground is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ
in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the
nature of mandamus is issued commanding the
opposite party no. 1 to reconstitute a
Departmental
Promotion
Committee
for
purposes of consideration of promotion to the
post of Chief Engineer (Civil) in the
Corporation
concerned
and
to
consider
petitioner's case afresh with regard to same
without making any deductions for the two
warnings issued to petitioner by the Corporation
and the minor penalty dated 21.02.2018.

32. Since the recommendations of
Departmental Promotion Committee dated
05.07.2024 are said to have already been
given effect to with regard to names of
other recommended persons, it is further
directed that in case petitioner is found
eligible for promotion on the post of Chief
Engineer (Civil), such promotion would
relate back to 05.07.2024.

33.

Consequently,
the
petition
succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear
their own cost.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 526
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 6749 of 2024

Arun Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner
Jitendra Bahadur, Shobh Nath Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 8
& 9 - Departmental enquiry - No charge
was found proved - However, direction for
re-enquiry
was
made
before
taking
decision by the Disciplinary Authority -
Validity challenged - Intervention before
taking decision by Disciplinary Authority -
Permissibility - Held, the Director General
has got no say or authority to request the
Disciplinary Authority to direct for reinquiry.
This
power
vests
with
the
Disciplinary Autority under Rule 9 to agree
with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or
not to agree with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer - High Court set aside the
impugned order for re-enquiry. (Para 10
and 12)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Though this Court allowed the
amendment application of the petitioner
9 All. Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
527
vide order dated 29.08.2024 but the
amendment has not been incorporated at
appropriate
place,
therefore,
learned
counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
incorporate the amendment at appropriate
place indicating the date of the impugned
order and the annexure number thereof
properly, during the course of day.

3. This Court has passed the order
dated 22.08.2024,which reads as under:-

"1. Heard Sri Upendra Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Jogendra Nath Verma, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-opposite parties no.1,
2 & 3.

2. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has prayed following main
reliefs:-

"1. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned
suspension
order
dated
15.12.2022 passed by respondent no.2 on
the recommendation of the respondent no.3
and
impugned
charge
sheet
dated
20.01.2023 issued by the respondent no.1
on the recommendation of the respondent
no.3 against the petitioner (Annexure No.1
& 2 to the writ petition.)

2. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to make the payment of
salary regularly month to month as and
when it falls due.

3. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to pay the arrears of salary
with 18% interest.

4. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents not to harass the petitioner
in any manner on the name of alleged
inquiry."

3. The precise contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
pursuant to the impugned suspension order
dated 15.12.2022, the petitioner was placed
under
suspension.
Thereafter,
Inquiry
Officer was appointed and the petitioner
was given charge sheet on 20.01.2023. The
aforesaid
disciplinary
inquiry
was
concluded on 05.07.2023 whereby none of
the charges has been proved against the
petitioner. As per the U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules,
1999"), after conclusion of disciplinary
inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submits its
inquiry report and findings before the
disciplinary authority and the disciplinary
authority
passes
appropriate
order
finalizing the disciplinary proceedings.
Undisputedly, in the present case, the
disciplinary/ appointing authority of the
petitioner is the State Government and any
appropriate decision in the case of the
petitioner after concluding the disciplinary
proceedings could have been taken by the
disciplinary authority but before taking any
appropriate decision by the disciplinary
authority on the findings of the inquiry
report, the Director General of Police/
Commandant General, Home Guards,
U.P., Lucknow preferred a letter dated
29.08.2023
(Annexure
No.31)
to
the
Additional Chief Secretary of the Home
Guards Department, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow
indicating
therein
that
the
findings of the Inquiry Officer are not
appropriate, such departmental inquiry has
been conducted in a cursory manner,
therefore, the findings of the Inquiry
Officer may be rejected and direction for
fresh inquiry may be issued.

4. Sri Upendra Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner, has rightly
submitted
that
after
initiating
the
departmental
inquiry
against
any
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employee, no officer can come within the
Inquiry
Officer
and
the
disciplinary
authority inasmuch as after conclusion of
the departmental inquiry, the appropriate
decision may only be taken by the
disciplinary
authority
independently
without being influenced from the opinion
of any other authority but in the present
case, the Director General of Police/
Commandant General, Home Guards,
U.P.,
Lucknow
has
influenced
the
disciplinary authority to reject the inquiry
report and to pass order for fresh
departmental enquiry saying that that
departmental inquiry has been concluded
in a cursory manner and after being
influenced from such letter of the Director
General of Police/ Commandant General,
Home Guards, the disciplinary authority
passed an order dated 17.05.2024 for
conducting fresh inquiry against the
petitioner, therefore, the Office Memo
dated 17.05.2024 has been passed in utter
violation of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that if the
fresh departmental inquiry would be
conducted against the petitioner pursuant
to the order dated 17.05.2024, the
petitioner would remain under suspension
inasmuch as the impugned suspension
order dated 15.12.2022 has not been
revoked/ cancelled and about one year and
nine months' period has passed since the
petitioner is under suspension and the law
is trite that prolonged suspension is not
acceptable unless there is any cogent
reason to that effect. In the present case,
final order could have been passed by the
disciplinary authority in the month of July,
2023 when the departmental inquiry was
concluded against the petitioner but on
account of unwarranted and unauthorized
action on the part of the Director General
of Police/ Commandant General, Home
Guards, the petitioner is under suspension,
therefore, Sri Singh has requested that the
impugned suspension order may be set
aside.

6. Matter requires consideration.

7. Let a short counter affidavit be
filed by opposite party no.2 i.e. Joint
Secretary, Home Guards, Civil Secretariat,
U.P., Lucknow within a period of ten days
to explain under which provision of law, he
has passed the order dated 17.05.2024
when the Inquiry Officer has submitted his
findings exonerating the petitioner but on
the letter being issued by the Director
General of Police/ Commandant General,
Home
Guards,
U.P.,
Lucknow
on
29.08.2023, he passed the aforesaid order
dated 17.05.2024.

8. List this case on 12.09.2024 as
fresh.

9. This matter may be taken up
after fresh cases."

4. Sri Vikas Singh, learned Standing
Counsel has apprised that the short counter
affidavit has been filed on 20.09.2024.

5. The short question involved in this
writ petition is that as to whether after
conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the
inquiry report should be submitted before
the Disciplinary Authority for taking
appropriate decision or any other authority
may intervene before taking any final
decision or before passing any final order
by the Disciplinary Authority.

6. To appreciate the aforesaid
question, Rule 8 & 9 of Uttar Pradesh
Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules, 1999 (here-in-after referred to as the
"Rules, 1999") would be relevant to be
examined. For convenience, Rule 8 & 9
read as under:-
9 All. Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
529

"8.
Submission
of
Inquiry
Report. -

When the inquiry is complete, the
Inquiry Officer shall submit its inquiry
report
to
the
disciplinary
authority
alongwith all the records of the inquiry.
The inquiry report shall contain a sufficient
record of brief facts, the evidence and
statement of the findings on each charge
and the reasons thereof. The Inquiry
Officer shall not make any recommendation
about the penalty.

9 Action on Inquiry Report. -

(1) The disciplinary authority
may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or
any other Inquiry Officer under intimation
to the charged Government servant. The
Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to
hold the inquiry from such stage as
directed by the disciplinary authority,
according to the provisions of Rule 7.

(2) The disciplinary authority
shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its
own findings thereon for reasons to be
recorded.

(3) In case the charges are not
proved, the charged Government servant
shall be exonerated by the disciplinary
authority of the charges and inform him
accordingly;

(4) If the disciplinary authority
having regard to its findings on all or any
of charges is of the opinion that any
penalty specified in Rule 3 should be
imposed on the charged Government
servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry
report and his findings recorded under subrule (2) to the charged Government servant
and
require
him
to
submit
his
representation if he so desires, within a
reasonable specified time. The disciplinary
authority shall, having regard to all the
relevant records relating to the inquiry and
representation of the charged Government
servant, if any, and subject to the
provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a
reasoned order imposing one or more
penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules
and communicate the same to the charged
Government servant."

7. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999
categorically provides that when the
inquiry is complete, the Inquiry Officer
shall submit its inquiry report to the
Disciplinary Authority along with all the
records of the inquiry. Rule 9 (1) of the
Rules, 1999 provides that the Disciplinary
Authority may, for reasons to be recorded
in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to
the same or any other Inquiry Officer under
intimation to the charged Government
servant. Rule 9 (2) of the Rules, 1999
provides that the disciplinary authority
shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its
own findings thereon for reasons to be
recorded.

8. The present case is a glaring example
of the violation of the rules inasmuch as in
the present case the departmental inquiry was
concluded on 05.07.2023 whereby none of
the charges have been proved against the
petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, in
the case of the present petitioner, is the State
Government and appropriate decision may be
taken by the Disciplinary Authority under
Rule 9.

9. In the case of the petitioner, the
Director General of Police/ Commandant
General, Home Guards, U.P., Lucknow
preferred a letter dated 29.08.2023 to the
Disciplinary authority i.e. Additional Chief
Secretary of the department indicating therein
that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not
appropriate as the departmental inquiry has
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been conducted and concluded in cursory
manner, therefore, findings of the Inquiry
Officer may be rejected and the direction for
fresh inquiry may be issued.

10.

The
aforesaid
letter
dated
29.08.2023 preferred by the Director General
concerned is patently illegal, arbitrary and
uncalled for and without jurisdictional in
terms of Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 1999 for
the reason that the Director General has got
no say or authority to request the Disciplinary
Authority to direct for re-inquiry. This power
vests with the Disciplinary Autority under
Rule 9 to agree with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer or not to agree with the
findings of the Inquiry Officer and in both
the case there is a specific modality to do the
needful.

11. By means of the short counter
affidavit the reason has been given that there
is some government order which authorizes
the departmental authority to submit her/
his
opinion
before
the
Disciplinary
Authority but Rule 8 & 9 of the Rules, 1999
do not permit the same. Therefore, by means
of any government order specific rule may
not circumvented. The law is trite on the
point that the Government Order may
supplant the rules but may not supplement
the same.

12. In view of the above, since there is
an error apparent on the face of record,
therefore office order dated 17.05.2024
(Annexure no. 34) passed by the Joint
Secretary of the Department for directing reinquiry is hereby set aside/ quashed.

13. The Disciplinary Authority shall
take appropriate decision on the inquiry
report
dated
05.07.2023,
strictly
in
accordance with law, to be more precise,
under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999.

14. Since no appropriate decision has
been taken by the Disciplinary Authority on
the inquiry report dated 05.07.2023 till date
under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999 and the
impugned
decision
so
taken
on
17.05.2024(supra) which has been set aside
being
without
jurisdiction
and
illegal,
therefore,
the
suspension
order
dated
15.12.2022 passed by the opposite party
No.2, which is contained as Annexure No.1,
is hereby set aside/ quashed as more than 1
year and 9 months have been passed, since
then the petitioner is under suspension.

15. It is needless to say that the revival
of the departmental inquiry and the chargesheet dated 20.01.2023 shall remain subject
to the decision being taken by the
Disciplinary Authority under Rule 9 of the
Rules, 1999. If any decision is taken by the
Disciplinary Authority for revival of the
departmental inquiry and the charge-sheet,
the appropriate order to that effect shall be
passed following the due procedure of law.

16. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition is allowed.

17. No order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 530
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 7318 of 2024

Assistant
Sub
Inspector
(M)
Brajesh
Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: