# Dharm Dev Maurya v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 336
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2377 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dharm-dev-maurya-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54619
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
(A) Justification of imposing penalty of 'warning'
by the disciplinary authority as a sequel to
domestic inquiry and that too without giving any
notice.
(B) Competence of the disciplinary authority to
impose a penalty of 'warning', even when this
kind of penalty is not provided under the
relevant Rules.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding
-
The
delinquent
employee
was
exonerated of the charges in domestic
inquiry report - Disciplinary authority,
though accepted this report and directed
for
reinstatement
of
the
petitioner
revoking the order of suspension, but
issued 'warning' as punishment - Validity
challenged - In the absence of any
provision
regarding
the
penalty
of
Warning, how far it can be imposed - No
show cause notice was given before
imposing the penalty of warning - Effect :
Held : Proper approach ought to have been for
the disciplinary authority to have issued a show
cause notice in the first instance to the writ
petitioner expressing its view as to why it was
disagreeing with the finding part of the report of
the inquiry officer - Disciplinary authority while
holding disciplinary inquiry into the charges
leveled against the delinquent employee in a
duly drafted and approved charge sheet, can
impose only those punishments that are
prescribed under the Discipline and Appeal
Rules - Since the 'warning' as such is no
punishment prescribed under the Discipline and
Appeal Rules 1999, therefore, the authority
could not have imposed this warning to the
petitioner by way of punishment. [Paras 8 and
9] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2012) 5 SCC 242 - referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999; Government order
dated 27.09.2019.
List of Keywords
Disciplinary
proceeding;
Domestic
inquiry;
Punishment;
Warning;
Reinstatement;
Revocation of suspension; Delinquent employee;
Minor penalty; Major penalty; Negligence; Show
cause notice; Issue no more res integra.
Case Arising From
Order dated 03.12.2020 of the Under Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh punishing the
petitioner with 'Warning'.

## Text

336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 7 ILRA 336
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 2377 of 2024

Dharm Dev Maurya ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Raghavendra
Singh,
Suvarna
Singh,
Upendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
(A) Justification of imposing penalty of 'warning'
by the disciplinary authority as a sequel to
domestic inquiry and that too without giving any
notice.
(B) Competence of the disciplinary authority to
impose a penalty of 'warning', even when this
kind of penalty is not provided under the
relevant Rules.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding
-
The
delinquent
employee
was
exonerated of the charges in domestic
inquiry report - Disciplinary authority,
though accepted this report and directed
for
reinstatement
of
the
petitioner
revoking the order of suspension, but
issued 'warning' as punishment - Validity
challenged - In the absence of any
provision
regarding
the
penalty
of
Warning, how far it can be imposed - No
show cause notice was given before
imposing the penalty of warning - Effect :
Held : Proper approach ought to have been for
the disciplinary authority to have issued a show
cause notice in the first instance to the writ
petitioner expressing its view as to why it was
disagreeing with the finding part of the report of
the inquiry officer - Disciplinary authority while
holding disciplinary inquiry into the charges
leveled against the delinquent employee in a
duly drafted and approved charge sheet, can
impose only those punishments that are
prescribed under the Discipline and Appeal
Rules - Since the 'warning' as such is no
punishment prescribed under the Discipline and
Appeal Rules 1999, therefore, the authority
could not have imposed this warning to the
petitioner by way of punishment. [Paras 8 and
9] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2012) 5 SCC 242 - referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999; Government order
dated 27.09.2019.
List of Keywords
Disciplinary
proceeding;
Domestic
inquiry;
Punishment;
Warning;
Reinstatement;
Revocation of suspension; Delinquent employee;
Minor penalty; Major penalty; Negligence; Show
cause notice; Issue no more res integra.
Case Arising From
Order dated 03.12.2020 of the Under Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh punishing the
petitioner with 'Warning'.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vibhu Rai and Shri
Upendra Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondent.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has assailed the order dated
7 All. Dharm Dev Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
337
03.12.2020 passed by the Under Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh issuing him
warning as a sequel to the disciplinary
proceeding accepting the domestic inquiry
report and directing for reinstatement of the
petitioner revoking the order of suspension.
Assailing the order dated 03.12.2020, three
fold arguments have been advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner:

(A)
Once
the
disciplinary
authority has proceeded to accept the
domestic inquiry report in which the
delinquent employee was exonerated of the
charges leveled in the charge sheet, there
was no occasion for the respondent
disciplinary authority to have issued
warning to such delinquent employee as a
consequence to the domestic inquiry;

(B) The disciplinary authority
was not justified even in issuing warning
without disagreeing with the findings of
inquiry report submitted by the inquiry
officer in the domestic inquiry and that too
without issuing any notice to the petitioner,
delinquent employee to show cause as to
why the domestic inquiry report may not be
partially rejected to issue such a warning;

(C) There is no punishment as
such prescribed under punishment and
appeal
rules
namely
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred
to as 'The Rule, 1999') either by way of
minor penalty or major penalty and hence
the order is bad for want of authority in
law, inasmuch as for want exercise of
lawful
authority
by
the
disciplinary
authority.

Sufficient pleadings have came to
be raised qua above grounds in various
paragraphs of the petition and more
specifically in paragraph nos. 46, 47, 48, 49
and 50 that run as under:-

"46. That the impugned order
itself is non speaking order and the same is
baseless and without any reason and the
grounds and reasons as given by the
petitioner in his representation dated
11.10.2022 as well as 11.11.2022 has not
been considered and without considering
the reasons and grounds in regard to
cancel
the
'Chetawani'
against
the
petitioner has been decided.

47. That the said impugned order
dated 24.05.2023 is not speaking and liable
to be set aside.

48. That the impugned order
dated 24.05.2023 is arbitrary and illegal.

49. That there is no reason and
occasion to give the 'Chetawani' being no
fault of the petitioner, however the inquiry
report as well as request of the respondent
no. 2 itself is clear that the petitioner is not
guilty and as such he has been exonerated
from all charges by the inquiry officer and
letter of the respondent no. 2 to the
respondent no. 2 in regard to revoking the
suspension of the petitioner is very clear.

50.
That
the
disciplinary
authority cannot punish anyone without
reason or material on record but in the
present case the respondent has given the
'Chetawani' against the petitioner merely
on the basis of surmises and conjectures,
the said action of the respondent is illegal
arbitrary and baseless and not sustainable
in the eyes of law."

3. It is next contended by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that in
view of the Government order dated
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27.09.2019
for
the
purposes
of
consideration of promotion and allotment
of marks five marks may be deducted qua
punishment of 'warning' issued to an
employee.
He
contends
further
that
according to government order five marks
could be deducted only for the warning
issued but with a prior show cause notice,
which discloses this aspect of the matter
that every such warning needed to be
issued only after a show cause notice.
However, the order impugned is absolutely
silent as there is no recital to the effect that
petitioner was ever issued with the notice
much less a show cause notice prior to
'warning' under the order impugned.

4. Defending the order assailed in the
writ petition, learned Additional Standing
Counsel submits that the disciplinary
authority can always take a different view
from the one taken by the domestic inquiry
officer and the order impugned specifically
assigns reasons for issuing warning to the
petitioner. However, on the question of
show cause notice he would concede that
recitals in the order impugned do not refer
to any such notice ever issued to the
petitioner prior to passing of the order,
inasmuch as in none of the paragraphs of
counter affidavit a stand has been taken by
the State-respondents that any notice was
ever issued to the petitioner prior to passing
of the order dated 03.12.2020. Insofar as
reply to various paragraphs quoted above is
concerned learned Standing Counsel has
drawn attention towards paragraph nos. 28
& 29 to suggest that department has
proceeded to place more reliance upon the
order in meeting the arguments recorded in
the relevant paragraphs.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the material available on records, I find the
points that arises for consideration of the
court is, as to whether disciplinary
authority is justified in issuing a 'warning'
to the petitioner as a sequel to domestic
inquiry while accepting the domestic
inquiry
report
and
directing
for
reinstatement of the petitioner and that too
without giving any notice prior to issuing
such warning; and as to whether the
disciplinary authority could have issued
warning by way of punishment as a result
of the domestic inquiry even though there
is no such penalty prescribed under the
relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules.

6. In order to find answer to the first
point as to whether the authority could have
issued or could have taken a different view
from the one taken by the domestic
inquiring authority, I see Rule, 1999
provides
sufficient
discretion
to
be
exercised by the authority to take a
different view from the one taken by the
inquiry officer or even reject the findings
returned by the inquiry officer in his
inquiry report. However, the relevant
provisions
provide
that
either
the
disciplinary authority would order for reinquiry by the same inquiry officer or shall
appoint inquiry officer afresh or otherwise
if it satisfied that no further inquiry is
required may issue notice to the delinquent
employee assigning reasons seeking for no
explanation before taking different view
from the one taken by the inquiry officer.
The relevant provisions of the Rules (9) is
reproduced hereunder:-

"9. Action on Inquiry Report-
(1) The Disciplinary authority may, for
reason to be recorded in writing, remit the
case for re-enquiry to be same or any
other Inquiry Officer under intimation to
the charged Government Servant the
Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to
7 All. Dharm Dev Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
339
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 finding of the
Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its
own finding 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 finding on all or any of
charges is of the opinion that any penalty
specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on
the charge Government Servant, he shall
give a copy of the inquiry report and his
finding recorded under sub-rule (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
charge 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 and communicate the same to the
charged Government Servant."

(Emphasis Supplied....)

7. From the perusal of the order
impugned dated 03.12.2020, it does not
transpire that the disciplinary authority
proposed to disagree with the findings
reached by the inquiry officer while issuing
a show cause notice or while taking final
decision. Insofar as the recitals contained in
paragraph no. 3 of the order are concerned
that petitioner was assigned duties in
relation to Home-guard Office, Gautam
Buddha Nagar and, therefore, even if he
had not been found guilty of the charges
but his dereliction in discharge of duties,
are concerned, was apparent, it is a kind of
finding that could have been returned only
after disagreeing with the findings of the
inquiry officer and that too by giving a
notice in the nature of show cause as why
in the given facts and circumstances
petitioner may not be held guilty of
negligence even though findings were to
the contrary arrived by the inquiry officer.
Comparing the finding part of the inquiry
report in its concluding paragraphs and the
one returned in paragraph no. 3 of the order
impugned, I find the paragraph no. 3 of the
order impugned runs absolutely in counter
to the findings return by inquiry officer.
Conclusion part of the inquiry officer's
report dated 19.02.2020 as well as
paragraph no. 3 of the order impugned are
reproduced hereunder:-

Inquiry officers' conclusion:

"शासन द्वारा भनगवत अनुमोभदत आरोप पत्र भदनांक
26.11.2019 एवं उसके साथ संग्लग्र पढ़े जाने वाले साक्ष्य, श्री
धमवदेव मौयव तत्कालीन मंडलीय कमांडेंट मेरठ सम्प्रभत भनलंभबत
सम्प्बद्ध होमगाड्वस मुख्यालय, उत्तर रदेश लखनऊ द्वारा उपलब्ध
कराई गयी आख्या भदनांक 30.12.2019 एवं संग्लग्र साक्ष्यों व
ऊपर वभणवत जांच आख्या आभद के भवभधवत अध्ययन के पश्चात् श्री
धमवदेव मौयव के भवरूदध संभस्थत अनुशासभनक कायवाही में अंभकत
आरोप संख्या 1 एव 2 रमाभणत नहीं पाए गए है।"

View formed in the impugned
order:

" जांच अभधकारी की जांच आख्या के परीक्षणोपरांत
पाया गया भक भदनांक 19.11.2019 की घभटत घटना के मात्र
18 भदन पूवव ही श्री धमवदेव मौयव, तत्कालीन मंडलीय कमांडेंट
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
होमगाड्वस द्वारा भदनांक 31.10.2019 को भजला कमांडेंट
होमगाड्वस द्वारा गौतमबुद्धनगर का अभतररि रिार ग्रहण भकया गया
था। श्री धमवदेव मौयव के पास भजला होमगाड्वस कायावलय,
गौतमबुद्धनगर के अभतररि रिार की अवभध में कायावलय के
अभिलेख जलाये गए थे। यद्यभप जांच में श्री धमवदेव मौयव की
रत्यक्षतः संभलप्तता नहीं पायी गयी, भफर िी लापरवाही व भशभथल
पयवेक्षण स्पि है।

अत: श्री धमवदेव मौयव तत्कालीन मंडलीय कमांडेंट
होमगाड्वस, मेरठ अभतररि रिार भजला कमांडेंट होमगाड्वस,
गौतमबुद्धनगर सम्प्रभत भनलंभबत सम्प्बद्ध होमगाड्वस मुख्यालय
लखनऊ को लापरवाही एवं भशभथल पयवेक्षण हेतु चेतावनी देते हुए
उनके भवरूद्ध संभस्थत अनुशासभनक कायवाही को एतत्द्वारा समाप्त
कर बहाल भकये जाने की श्री राज्यपाल महोदय सहिव स्वीकृभत रदान
करते है।"

8. In the considered view of the Court
proper approach ought to have been for the
disciplinary authority to have issued a show
cause notice in the first instance to the
writ petitioner expressing its view as to
why it was disagreeing with the finding
part of the report of the inquiry officer.
This, I find to be absolutely lacking in
the order impugned and therefore, the
first point stands answered in favour of
the petitioner and the authority has
proceeded without due application of
mind in forming an independent view.
While doing so it was imperative on its
part to at least deal with the subject
matter which was subjected to inquiry as
well as the charges leveled in the charge
sheet. Here it also becomes relevant to
quote relevant paragraph nos. 26 to 29 of
the
counter
affidavit,
which
are
absolutely sketchy and vague. Paragraph
nos. 26 to 29 of the counter affidavit are
held as under:---

" 26. That the contents of
paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition are
not admitted for the reasons stated in the
preceding paragraphs.

27. That the content of paragraph
no. 43, 44 & 45 of the writ petition need no
comments.

28.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph no. 46 to 50 of the writ petition
are not admitted for the reasons stated in
the preceding paragraphs.

29. That the content of paragraph
no. 51 to 55 of the writ petition need no
comments.

9. In dealing with the specific
allegations made in the relevant paragraphs
of the writ petition insofar as the second
argument is concerned that the authority
could not have imposed a penalty which
was not prescribed under the relevant rules,
the counter affidavit should have dealt with
it exclusively. In my considered view, this
issue is no more res integra. It is very well
settled legal position that disciplinary
authority while holding disciplinary inquiry
into the charges leveled against the
delinquent employee in a duly drafted and
approved charge sheet, can impose only
those punishments that are prescribed under
the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Since the
'warning' as such is no punishment
prescribed under the Discipline and Appeal
Rules 1999, therefore, the authority could
not have imposed this warning to the
petitioner by way of punishment. If it was
not satisfied with the inquiry report, it
could have re-enquired the charges before
passing
an
order
of
penalty.
For
appreciation of this point qua major and
minor penalties as prescribed in para 3 of
Rules 1999 are held as under:-

3. Penalties

The following penalties may, for
good and sufficient reasons and as
7 All. Dharm Dev Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
341
hereinafter provided, be imposed upon the
government servants;

Minor Penalties

(i) Censure

(ii) Withholding of increments for
a specified period.

(iii) Stoppage at an efficiency
bar.

(iv) Recovery from pay of the whole
or part of any pecuniary loss caused to
Government by negligence or breach of order.

(v) Fine incase of persons in
holding Group D posts. Provided that the
amount of such fine shall in no case exceed
twenty five percent of the months pay in
which the fine is imposed.

Major Penalties

(i) Withholding of increments
with cumulative effect;

(ii) Reduction to a lower post or
grade time scale or to a lower stage in a
time scale;

(iii) Removal from the service
which does not disqualify from future
employment;

(iv) Dismissal from the service
which disqualify from future employment.

Explanation- The following shall
not amount to penalty within the meaning
of this rule, namely:

(i) Withholding of increment of a
Government Servant for failure to pass a
departmental examination or for failure to
fulfill any other condition in accordance
with the rules or orders governing the
service:

(ii) Stoppage at the efficiency bar
in the time scale of pay on account of ones
not being found fit to cross the efficiency
bar;

(iii)
Reversion
of
a
person
appointed to probation to the service
during or at the end of the period of
probation in accordance with the terms of
appointment or the rules and orders
governing such probation.

(iv) Termination of the service of
a person appointed on probation during or
at the end of period of probation in
accordance with the term of the service or
the rules and order governing such
probation.

10. In the case of Vijay Singh v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2012) 5
SCC 242, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
paragraph nos. 21, 22 and 23 as under:-

"21. Undoubtedly, in a civilised
society governed by the Rule of Law, the
punishment not prescribed under the
statutory
rules
cannot
be
imposed.
Principle
enshrined
in
criminal
jurisprudence to this effect is prescribed in
the legal maxim nulla poena sine lege
which means that a person should not be
made to suffer penalty except for a clear
breach of existing law.

22.
In
S.
Khushboo
v.
Kanniammal this Court has held that a
person cannot be tried for an alleged
offence unless the legislature has made it
punishable by law and it falls within the
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence as defined under Sections 40, 41
and 42 of the Penal Code, 1860, Section
2(n) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, or Section 3(38) of the General
Clauses Act, 1897. The same analogy can
be drawn in the instant case though the
matter is not criminal in nature.

23. Thus, in view of the above, the
punishment order is not maintainable in the
eye of the law. In the result, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 8-7-2010 withholding the
integrity certificate for the year 2010 and
all subsequent orders in this regard are
quashed. The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the appellant for all
consequential
benefits
including
promotion, etc. if any, afresh taking into
consideration the service record of the
appellant in accordance with law."

11. I may further take notice of the
Government
order
which
directs
for
deduction of five marks for warning issued
to employee by considering promotion and
I find that the Government Order dated
27.09.2019, prescribes for deduction of
marks in the event warning issued to an
employee after issuing the show cause
notice. Thus, in the considered view of the
Court, this type of punishment even if
conceived of otherwise by means of any
circular or Government Order, it could not
have been imposed without giving notice
and
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
delinquent employee.

12. In view of the above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order dated
03.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 2, is
hereby quashed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 342
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 2479 of 2025

Smt. Munni ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pankaj Kumar Rai, Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
(A) Right of successor to get decided the
departmental appeal on merit even after the
death of the delinquent employee.
(B) Applicability of law of abatement in the
matter relating to the service jurisprudence.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Departmental appeal -
The delinquent employee was died during
the pendency of appeal - Effect - Right of
employee's successor to get the appeal
decided on merit - Entitlement :
Held : It is true that in service jurisprudence
employer and employee relationship ceases to
exist the moment contract of employment
ceases but where the service conditions are
governed by statutory rules, mere recitals
contained in the appointment order would not
govern service conditions - An employee if is
working in establishment, which may be a
pensionable establishment and where the family
pension rights are also vested with the
dependents of the family or otherwise also
where the dues are inherited by the dependents
of the employee by succession, such cause of
action would survive till the last available
statutory remedy is exhausted - Even an
employee's successor is entitled to question an