# Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. reported

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 570
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-reported-42475
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1 All] Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Another
265
treating his age of superannuation to be
62 years within a period of three months
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced by the petitioner before the
District Inspector of Schools.

The writ petition, therefore, succeeds
and is allowed to the extent indicated
above."

6. In the instant case the respondents
allege that there is no exercise of option in
terms of the G.O. dated 17.2.1999.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, let
the Regional Joint Director of Education -
Respondent No. 3, proceed to pass an
appropriate order on the claim of the
petitioner and in view of the law laid
down hereinabove coupled with the
provisions of the Government Order dated
17.2.1999 as well as taking in account the
ratio of the decision in the case of Smt.
Prabha Kakkar Vs. Joint Director of
Education, Kanpur & others reported in
2000 (2) ESC Pg. 1118 within a period of
three months from the date of production
of a certified copy of this order before the
said
respondent
after
putting
the
Committee of Management also to notice
in this respect and giving an opportunity
of hearing.

8. The writ petition is disposed of.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43331 of 2000

Sohan Lal

...Petitioner
Versus
U.P.Co-operative
Federation
Ltd.
&
Another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vikram D. Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.C.Tripathi
S.C.

U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees
Service Regulations 1975-regualtion 85disciplinary
proceeding-petitioner
the
District Manager in P.C.F. Given reply to
show-cause notice-disciplinary authority
punished with recovery of pecuniary loss
with
adverse
entry-whether
such
punishment be awarded without oral
enquiry-sustain
for
inflicting
minor
punishment oral enquiry not necessaryheld-minor penalty can not dilute the
legal right-enquiry must be in conformity
with procedure prescribed-proceeding
vitiated-order quashed.

Held: Para-34
Therefore, mere fact that lastly only
minor penalty could have been inflicted
upon petitioner, would not dilute his
legal right that disciplinary inquiry when
initiated
must
have
been
held
in
conformity with procedure prescribed,
attracting provisions, applicable at the
inception of inquiry.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J)

1. The petitioner has preferred this
Writ Petition for issuance of a writ of
certiorari to quash the order dated 29th
August, 2000, whereby the respondent
no.2, the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lucknow has
imposed minor punishment of special
adverse entry and a recovery of Rs.
3,19,984.99.
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

2. A brief reference to the factual
aspects would suffice.

3. The petitioner was initially
appointed as Assistant Clerk in the year
1964 in U.P. Co-operative Federation
Ltd.,
(for
short
"Federation").
The
federation is registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,1965 (for short
"Act, 1965") and is an apex level society
in terms of Section 2 (a-4) of the Act. Its
area of operation extends to State of U.P.
The Federation has its bye-laws and the
employees of the Federation are governed
by the Act,1965 and the rules framed
thereunder. The State Government in
exercise of power under section 122- A of
the Act has constituted U.P. Co-operative
Institutional Service Board. The said
Service Board has framed the Regulations
namely
U.P.
Co-operative
Societies
Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (for
short "the Regulations,1975").

4. The petitioner earned his promotion
from time to time. He was posted as a
District Manager in the P.C.F. Mathura of
the Federation from 15.10.1982 to 4.8.1984.
The petitioner was subjected to the
disciplinary proceedings. The Managing
Director of the Federation placed him under
suspension vide order dated 8.8.1984
(placed on the record as Annexure-1). The
petitioner preferred a writ petition No.
11340 of 1984 to challenge suspension
order dated 8th August, 1984. In the said
writ petition interim order was passed on
12.11.1984 and suspension order of the
petitioner was stayed. The Managing
Director appointed an Inquiry Officer on
22nd May, 1985 and a charge sheet dated
23rd September, 1985 (Annexure-4 to the
writ petition) was served on the petitioner.
The charge sheet contained as many as
thirteen charges against the petitioner and
most of the charges pertain to his
negligence,
remissness
in
wheat
procurement, as a consequence whereof
Federation had to suffer monetary loss.
The petitioner's several decision was
alleged to infected with bad motives.

5. Relevant would it be to mention
that the State Government had entrusted the
Federation to purchase wheat from farmers
to strengthen its Price Support Scheme of
essential commodities. The Federation was
to act as an Agent of the State Government
for the purchase of wheat during the Rabi
Crop Season 1984-85. The Federation was
required to purchase wheat from different
regions at its Regional and District Offices
of all the districts.

6. In view of our proposed order
which we are going to pass, we need not
give details of the charges and reply
submitted by the petitioner.

7. The petitioner submitted reply to
the charge sheet on 15.12.1985. He
denied all the charges made in the charge
sheet. The petitioner had submitted
applications (dated 12th August, 1986 and
4th December, 1986) for the change of
Inquiry Officer on the ground that the
Inquiry Officer himself was involved in
approving proprietor of Transport Firm
who was alleged to have misappropriated
food-grain of Federation, in respect of
which inquiry was conducted against
petitioner. His applications did not find
favour from the authority concerned. The
Inquiry Officer submitted report on
10.3.1989 to disciplinary authority,who
issued a show cause notice (Annexure-11
to the writ petition) to petitioner as to why
major penalty mentioned in the show
cause notice should not be inflicted upon
him.
1 All] Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Another
267

8. The petitioner submitted reply to
the said show cause notice on 27.11.1986
wherein took a stand that the findings of
Inquiry Officer in his report are not
supported by any evidence and he was not
guilty of the charges. He further stated
that none of the charge has been
established by documentary evidence
much less oral evidence. The Disciplinary
Authority was not satisfied with the reply
submitted by petitioner and directed a
recovery of Rs.3,19,984.99 from the pay
and other benefits payable to the
petitioner for causing pecuniary loss to
the Federation and also awarded special
adverse entry.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2.
The stand taken in the counter affidavit is
that the petitioner had illegally engaged
some transporters at his own level for
transportation of wheat and on account of
his
negligence
the
Contractor
misappropriated huge quantity of wheat
grain. It is also stated that the petitioner
was offered full opportunity in the
departmental proceedings but he did not
participate in the enquiry and charges
against him have been found proved.

10.

We
have
heard
Sri
V.D.Chauhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner Sri V.D.Chauhan and Sri
V.C.Tripathi learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 and 2 .

11. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that charges against
him have not been proved as no witness
was examined by department and no date,
time and place was fixed by Inquiry
Officer. He further urged that from
perusal of the enquiry report it is
established that the Inquiry Officer has
merely referred the reply of petitioner and
has held him guilty. In fact no inquiry at
all has been conducted in terms of the
provisions of Chapter VII of the 1975
Regulations which provides the procedure
for the disciplinary proceedings and
appeal.

12. Sri V.C.Tripathi learned counsel
for the respondent 1 and 2 submitted that
the petitioner failed to produce any
evidence inspite of the fact that he was
given opportunity and as such the Inquiry
Officer on the basis of the material on
record and after considering the reply
submitted by petitioner had submitted
enquiry
report
to
the
disciplinary
authority. The petitioner was found guilty
of serious negligence and as such no
interference is called for under Article
226 of the Constitution.

13. The petitioner's service is
governed by the Regulations, 1975. A
detailed
procedure
for
disciplinary
proceedings is provided in Regulation 85.
It is apposite at this stage to set out Rule,
so far as material:-

"85. Disciplinary proceedings:- (i)
The disciplinary proceedings against an
employee shall be conducted by the
Inquiry Officer (referred to in Clause (iv)
below) with due observance of the
principles of natural justice for which it
shall be necessary-

(a) The employee shall be served
with a charge-sheet containing specific
charges and mention of evidence in
support of each charge and he shall be
required to submit explanation in respect
of the charges within reasonable time
which shall not be less than fifteen days;
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

(b) Such an employee shall also be
given an opportunity to produce at his
own cost or to cross examine witnesses in
his defence and shall also be given an
opportunity of being heard in person, if he
so desires;

(c) If no explanation in respect of
charge sheet is received or the explanation
submitted is unsatisfactory, the competent
authority may award him appropriate
punishment considered necessary.

(ii)xxxx"

14. A close look at the gamut of the
aforesaid Rule instantly brings out that
observation of procedural safe guard is
statutory requirement.

15. A long line of decisions have
settled that even if the statutes are silent
or there are no positive words requiring
observance of Natural Justice, yet it
would
apply
unless
the
statutes
specifically provides its exclusion. In the
case in hand the rule itself has used the
word 'Natural Justice'

16. It is vehement contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner that as
procedure for major penalty was initiated,
it was mandatory on the part of
respondents authority to hold oral inquiry
in the matter, but no such inquiry was
conducted, therefore, entire proceedings
including punishment order is vitiated.

17. The question that calls for
determination is whether oral inquiry is
necessary when the employer intents to
impose major punishment.

18. We may usefully refer to a
discussion on this issue by a recent
judgments of the Supreme Court and a
series of decisions of this Court. The
authorities in abundance are available of
this Court.

19. The Supreme Court in the State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha
reported (2010) 2 SCC 772 held that :-

"An inquiry officer acting in a quasijudicial authority is in the position of an
independent
adjudicator.
He
is
not
supposed to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to
examine the evidence presented by the
Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold
that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has
been examined the documents have not
been proved, and could not have been
taken into consideration to conclude
that the charges have been proved
against the respondents.

When a departmental enquiry is
conducted against the government servant
it cannot be treated as a casual exercise.
The enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The
inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased.
The rules of natural justice are required to
be observed to ensure not only that justice
is done but is manifestly seen to be done.
The object of rules of natural justice is to
ensure that a government servant is
treated fairly in proceedings which may
culminate in imposition of punishment
including
dismissal/removal
from
service."
1 All] Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Another
269

20. Similar view was taken in Roop
Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank,
(2009) 2 SCC 570:-

"Indisputably,
a
departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
The enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function. The charges levelled
against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved. The enquiry
officer has a duty to arrive at a finding
upon
taking
into
consideration
the
materials brought on record by the parties.
The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer
against all the accused by itself could not
be treated to be evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. No witness was
examined to prove the said documents.
The management witnesses merely
tendered the documents and did not
prove the contents thereof. Reliance,
inter alia, was placed by the enquiry
officer on the FIR which could not have
been treated as evidence."

21. This Court has also taken same
view in Subhas Chandra Sharma v.
Managing Director and another reported
2000(1) UPLBEC 541:-

"In our opinion after the petitioner
replied to the charge-sheet a date should
have been fixed for the enquiry and the
petitioner should have been intimated the
date, time and place of the enquiry and on
that date the oral and documentary
evidence against the petitioner should
have been led in his presence and he
should have been given an opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses against
him and also he should have been given
an opportunity to produce his own
witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner
in response to this intimation had failed to
appear for the enquiry then an ex parte
enquiry should have been held but the
petitioner's service should have not been
terminated without holding an enquiry. In
the present case it appears that no regular
enquiry was held at all. All that was done
that after receipt of the petitioner's
reply to the charge-sheet he was given a
show-cause notice and thereafter the
dismissal order was passed. In our
opinion this was not the correct legal
procedure and there was violation of
the rules of natural justice. Since no
date for enquiry was fixed nor any
enquiry held in which evidence was led
in our opinion the impugned order is
clearly violative of natural justice."

In Meenglas Tea Estate v. The
workmen., AIR 1963 SC 1719, the
Supreme Court observed "It is an
elementary principle 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. He must be given a fair chance
to hear the evidence in support of the
charge and to put such relevant questions
by way to cross-examination as he
desires. Then he must be given a chance
to rebut the evidence led against him. This
is the barest requirement of an enquiry of
this character and this requirement must
be substantially fulfilled before the result
of the enquiry can be accepted".

In
S.C.
Girotra
v.
United
Commercial Bank 1995 Supp. (3) SCC
212, the Supreme Court set aside a
dismissal order which was passed without
giving the employee an opportunity of
cross-examination. In State of U.P. v. C.
S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158, the
Supreme Court held that omission to
give opportunity to the officer to
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
produce his witnesses and lead evidence
in his defence vitiates the proceedings.
The Court also held that in the enquiry
witnesses have to be examined in
support
of
the
allegations,
and
opportunity has to be given to the
delinquent
to
cross-examine
these
witnesses and to lead evidence in his
defence. In Punjab National Bank v.
A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC
160, (vide para 66) the Supreme Court
held that in such enquiries evidence must
be recorded in the presence of the chargesheeted employee and he must be given
an opportunity to rebut the said evidence.
The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd.
v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 396,
and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their
Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 78 (SC).

Even if the employee refuses to
participate in the enquiry the employer
cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he
must hold and ex-parte enquiry where
evidence must be led vide Imperial
Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR
1962 SC 1348, Uma Shankar v. Registrar,
1992 (65) FLR 674 (All)."

22. The above judgment was
followed by a Division Bench in Subhas
Chandra Sharma v. U.P.Co-operative
Spinning Mills and others reported 2001
(2) UPLBEC 1475 the Court held thus:

"In
cases
where
a
major
punishment proposed to be imposed an
oral enquiry is a must, whether the
employee request, for it or not. For this
it is necessary to issue a notice to the
employee concerned intimating him date,
time and place of the enquiry as held by
the Division Bench of this Court in
Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing
Director, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541, against
which SLP has been dismissed by the
Supreme Court on 16-8-2000."

23. One of us (Justice Sudhir
Agarwal) in Rajesh Prasad Mishra v.
Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi
and others reported 2010 (1) UPLBEC
216 observed as under after detail
analysis:

"Now coming to the question, what
is the effect of non-holding of oral
inquiry, I find that, in a case where the
inquiry officer is appointed, oral
inquiry is mandatory. The charges are
not deemed to be proved suo motu merely
on account of levelling them by means of
the charge sheet unless the same are
proved by the department before the
inquiry officer and only thereafter it is the
turn of delinquent employee to place his
defence.
Holding
oral
enquiry
is
mandatory before imposing a major
penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of
U.P. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava,
1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division
Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra
Sharma
Vs.
Managing
Director
&
another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541.

The question as to whether non
holding of oral inquiry can vitiate the
entire proceeding or not has also been
considered in detail by a Division Bench
of this Court (in which I was also a
member) in the case of Salahuddin Ansari
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC
1667 and the Court has clearly held that
non holding of oral inquiry is a serious
flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary
proceeding
including
the
order
of
punishment."

24. The Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta
1 All] Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Another
271
v. State of U.P. and others reported (2011)
2 ILR 570 had also occasion to deal with
the same issue. It held:

"At this stage, we are to observe
that in the disciplinary proceedings
against a delinquent, the department is
just like a plaintiff and initial burden
lies on the department to prove the
charges which can certainly be proved
only by collecting some oral evidence or
documentary evidence, in presence and
notice charged employee. Even if the
department
is
to
rely
its
own
record/document which are already
available, then also the enquiry officer
by looking into them and by assigning
his own reason after analysis, will have
to record a finding that hose documents
are sufficient enough to prove the
charges.

In no case, approach of the Enquiry
Officer that as no reply has been
submitted, the charge will have to be
automatically proved can be approved.
This will be erroneous. It has been
repeatedly said that disciplinary authority
has a right to proceed against delinquent
employee in exparte manner but some
evidence will have to be collected and
justification to sustain the charges will
have to be stated in detail. The approach
of the enquiry officer of automatic prove
of charges on account of non filing of
reply
is
clearly
misconceived
and
erroneous. This is against the principle of
natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and,
thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned
in this respect."

25. In another case in Subhash
Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. reported
2012 (1) UPLBEC 166 the Division
Bench of this Court after survey of law on
this issue observed as under:

"It is well settled that when the
statute provides to do a thing in a
particular manner that thing has to be
done in that very manner. We are of the
considered opinion that any punishment
awarded on the basis of an enquiry not
conducted in accordance with the enquiry
rules meant for that very purposes is
unsustainable in the eye of law. We are
further of the view that the procedure
prescribed under the inquiry rules for
imposing major penalty is mandatory
in nature and unless those procedures
are followed, any out come inferred
thereon will be of no avail unless the
charges are so glaring and unrefutable
which does not require any proof. The
view taken by us find support from the
judgement of the Apex Court in State of
U.P. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava,
1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division
Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra
Sharma
Vs.
Managing
Director
&
another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541.

. A Division Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3)
ESC 1667 held that non holding of oral
inquiry is a serious flaw which can
vitiate
the
order
of
disciplinary
proceeding including the order of
punishment has observed as under:-

" 10....... Non holding of oral inquiry
in such a case, is a serious matter and
goes to the root of the case.

11. A Division Bench of this Court
in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing
Director
&
another,
2000
(1)
U.P.L.B.E.C.
541,
considering
the
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
question as to whether holding of an oral
inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no
oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial
of principles of natural justice to the
delinquent employee. The aforesaid view
was reiterated in Subash Chandra Sharma
Vs. U.P.Cooperative Spinning Mills &
others, 2001 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1475 and
Laturi Singh Vs U.P.Public Service
Tribunal & others, Writ Petition No.
12939 of 2001, decided on 06.05.2005."

26. The principal of law emanates
from the above judgments are that initial
burden is on the department to prove the
charges. In case of procedure adopted for
inflicting major penalty, the department
must prove the charges by oral evidence
also.

27. From the perusal of the enquiry
report it is demonstrably proved that no
oral evidence has been led by the
department. When a major punishment is
proposed to be passed the department has
to
prove
the
charges
against
the
delinquent/employee by examining the
witnesses and by documentary evidence.
In the present case no witness was
examined by the department neither any
officer has been examined to prove the
documents in the proceedings.

28. It is trite law that the
departmental
proceedings
are
quasi
judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer
functions as quasi judicial officer. He is
not merely a representative of the
department. He has to act as an
independent and impartial officer to find
out the truth. The major punishment
awarded to an employee visit serious civil
consequences
and
as
such
the
departmental proceedings ought to be in
conformity with the principles of natural
justice. Even if, an employee prefers not
to
participate
in
the
enquiry
the
department has to establish the charges
against the employee by adducing oral as
well as documentary evidence. In case the
charges warrant major punishment then
the oral evidence by producing the
witnesses is necessary.

29. We may hasten to add that the a
above mentioned law is subject to certain
exception. When the facts are admitted or
no real prejudice has been caused to
employee or no other conclusion is
possible, in such situation the order shall
not be vitiated. Reference may be made to
the some of the decision of Supreme
Court in K.L.Tripathi v. State Bank of
India reported AIR 1984 SC 273 ; State
Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma reported
AIR 1996 SC 1669 and Biecco Lawrie
Ltd. v. West Bengal reported (2009) 10
SCC 32.

30. In the present case the stand
taken by the respondent are that the
petitioner inspite of the opportunity given
to him did not participate in the inquiry.
Even if the said statement is assumed to
be
correct
the
obligation
on
the
department to prove the charges is not
discharged.

31. It was, however, pointed out on
behalf of respondents that punishment
actually awarded to petitioner is only
recovery and censure/special adverse
entry and both being minor punishment,
the punishment order ought not be
interfered on the ground that no oral
inquiry is held since before imposing a
minor punishment oral inquiry is not
obligatory.
1 All] Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Another
273

32. In our view the submission is
thoroughly misconceived. From perusal
of charge sheet it cannot be doubted that
the charges, if have been proved,
petitioner could have been liable to be
awarded a major penalty. The competent
authority also proceeded with an intention
that charges, if proved, may result in
major penalty and it is for this reason
earlier he was suspended and then he
appointed
an
Inquiry
Officer.
Appointment of Inquiry Officer for
holding oral inquiry shows the intention
of the disciplinary authority that the
employee may suffer major penalty. In
those cases where oral inquiry is
necessary i.e. cases of major penalty,
inquiry officer is ordinarily appointed
otherwise simply by issuing a charge
sheet and receiving reply, a minor penalty
could have been awarded, which is not the
case here.

33. The intention of disciplinary
authority is further clear from the fact that
petitioner was placed under suspension.
Suspension is permissible only when
charges are so serious so as to attract
major penalty. Besides, even the show
cause notice issued to petitioner proposed
a major penalty.

34. We are clearly of the view that
the ultimate result shall not govern the
manner
of
preceding
disciplinary
proceedings inasmuch as the authorities,
if found no proof of serious charges to
justify major penalty, therefore, imposed
minor penalty, it would not distract from
the fact that proceedings were initiated for
major
penalty
and
despite
denying
adequate
opportunity
to
delinquent
employee, i.e., by not holding oral
inquiry, he was able to show shallowness
of charges which satisfy the disciplinary
authority that major penalty is not
warranted. If adequate opportunity would
have
been
afforded
to
delinquent
employee, he could have demonstrated
that no penalty whatsoever is liable to be
inflicted upon him, since, the charges in
entirety, are baseless etc. It is the
inception of proceedings which will
govern
the
manner
of
disciplinary
proceedings to be conducted and not the
ultimate result. Therefore, mere fact that
lastly only minor penalty could have been
inflicted upon petitioner, would not dilute
his legal right that disciplinary inquiry
when initiated must have been held in
conformity with procedure prescribed,
attracting provisions, applicable at the
inception of inquiry.

35. After careful consideration of
the facts we are of the view that the
disciplinary proceedings are vitiated for
the aforestated reasons. The impugned
order
dated
29.8.2000
passed
by
respondent no.2 herein is liable to be
quashed. Accordingly it is quashed.

36. However, the order shall not
preclude the disciplinary authority from
proceeding afresh in the light the
observations made hereinabove and in
accordance with law.

37.
With
the
aforesaid
directions/observations and in the manner,
as above, this writ petition is allowed. No
costs.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.