# Dinesh Kumar Kureel v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 527
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-04
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2154 of 2025
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-kumar-kureel-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53220
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law-Disciplinary ProceedingsReliance on Preliminary Inquiry-Violation
of
Natural
Justice-The
petitioner
challenged the disciplinary order dated
06.11.2024, whereby the punishment of
stoppage
of
three
increments
with
cumulative effect was imposed based on
findings from a preliminary inquiry-The
Court observed that the petitioner was not
associated with the preliminary inquiry,
and
no
witnesses
or
documentary
evidence
were
produced
during
the
regular
inquiry
to
substantiate
the
charges-Additional material relied upon in
the inquiry was neither supplied to the
petitioner nor was he given a chance to
rebut the same-the court emphasized
that reliance on a preliminary inquiry,
without
conducting
a
full-fledged
disciplinary
inquiry
involving
examination and cross-examination of
witnesses, is in violation of principles of
natural
justice-Held,
the
inquiry
proceedings
and
the
impugned
punishment order are vitiated due to
serious procedural lapses and violation
of natural justice.(Para 1 to 29)
The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Dinesh Kumar Kureel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
527
26. Parties to bear their own costs
of litigation.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 527
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 2154 of 2025

Dinesh Kumar Kureel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sudeep Kumar, Rajan Mishra, Umesh Chandra
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K. Upadhyaya)

A. Service Law-Disciplinary ProceedingsReliance on Preliminary Inquiry-Violation
of
Natural
Justice-The
petitioner
challenged the disciplinary order dated
06.11.2024, whereby the punishment of
stoppage
of
three
increments
with
cumulative effect was imposed based on
findings from a preliminary inquiry-The
Court observed that the petitioner was not
associated with the preliminary inquiry,
and
no
witnesses
or
documentary
evidence
were
produced
during
the
regular
inquiry
to
substantiate
the
charges-Additional material relied upon in
the inquiry was neither supplied to the
petitioner nor was he given a chance to
rebut the same-the court emphasized
that reliance on a preliminary inquiry,
without
conducting
a
full-fledged
disciplinary
inquiry
involving
examination and cross-examination of
witnesses, is in violation of principles of
natural
justice-Held,
the
inquiry
proceedings
and
the
impugned
punishment order are vitiated due to
serious procedural lapses and violation
of natural justice.(Para 1 to 29)
The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs St. of Guj. & anr. (2013)4
SCC 301.

2. Satyendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2024) SCC
Online SC 3325

3. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned
counsel for petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for respondents and Sri
R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for
respondent.

2. The grievance raised by the
petitioner in the present writ petition is with
regard to order dated 06.01.2024 passed by
the State of U.P. thereby inflicting the
punishment of stoppage of three increments
permanently with cumulative effect on
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel
for
petitioner
that
present
controversy relates to progress of the
Harchandpur - Sirsaghat Road which was
for a length of 0.968 kms. which in the
review meeting Chaired by the concerned
Minister
was
shown
to
have
been
completed.

4. It has been submitted that during
an inquiry conducted by the Chief Engineer
Central
Public
Works
Department,
Lucknow on 13.10.2022, it was found that
47 meters of the road had not been
completed and work was still remaining.
Accordingly,
it
is
for
the
incorrect
information supplied to the authorities, the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against the petitioner and other persons
who were responsible for the same.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that charge-sheet
was
submitted
to
the
petitioner
on
16.11.2022 containing four charges where
the preliminary inquiry conducted on
13.10.2022 was also to be relied by the
respondents in support of the said charges.
It has been submitted that the petitioner
was never associated with the preliminary
inquiry and there is no doubt with regard to
the fact that during inquiry proceedings, no
further steps were taken to determine the
allegations against the petitioner as to
whether the entire length of the disputed
road was completed or not and as to
whether the petitioner was guilty for giving
the wrong information.

6. It is stated that the question as to
whether a preliminary inquiry report can be
a basis for bringing the charges against the
government servant was considered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Nirmala J.
Jhala Vs. State of Gujrat, 2013 (4) SCC 301
where it has been held that evident
recorded in the disciplinarian inquiry
cannot be used in a regular inquiry as the
delinquent is not associated with it and the
opportunity
to
cross-examine
persons
examined in preliminary inquiry is not
given.

7. He has drawn the attention of
this Court to the inquiry report as well as
impugned order of punishment indicating
that for approving the charges against the
petitioner heavy reliance has been placed
on the report of the inquiry committee. He
has further submitted that the inquiry was
concluded on 15.02.2023 and subsequently,
the Inquiry Officer had suo motto directed
the respondents to submit copy of the M.B.
(Measurement Book) and other material
which was handed over to him on
09.05.2023 and the additional material so
produced was never given to the petitioner
nor he was given any opportunity to
confront with the additional material and
the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary
authority has relied upon the said material
and contents of the M.B. (Measurement
Book) to prove the charges against the
petitioner resulting in the impugned order
of punishment. It was stated that the
inquiry proceeded in total violation of
principles
of
natural
justice
and
is
therefore, liable to be set aside.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on
the other hand has opposed the writ petition
on the basis of written instructions received
from the Executive Engineer, Prantiya
Khand, P.W.D., Raibareily stating that the
inquiry proceedings against petitioner have
been conducted in accordance with law and
all the provisions contained in U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been followed
and full opportunity of hearing has been
given to the petitioner. He has further
submitted that even after submission of
inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority
has given full opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and only thereafter has passed
the order of punishment and submits that
there is no infirmity in the inquiry
proceedings conducted against petitioner
and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

10. The issue which falls for
consideration before this Court is as to
whether disciplinary proceedings against
petitioner have been conducted adhering to
the golden principle of Natural Justice
3 All. Dinesh Kumar Kureel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
529
where the petitioner has been given full
opportunity of hearing or not?

11. It is noticed that the allegation
levelled
against
petitioner
was
that
erroneous information was given to the
higher officers with regard to completion of
work of widening and strengthening of
Harchandpur-Sirsaghat Road of length
0.968Km in Raebareli district, where 47
meters of road had not been completed
while higher authorities were informed to
the contrary that entire road has been
constructed.

12. On the basis of aforesaid
information
preliminary
inquiry
was
conducted and on the basis of preliminary
inquiry report, disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against petitioner. It is stated
that though petitioner was never associated
with the preliminary inquiry, but the copy
of the preliminary inquiry report was
handed over to the petitioner as the same
was sought to be relied upon by the
respondents in support of the charges.

13. It is noticed that there was no
other cogent material in support of the
charges and merely relying upon the
preliminary inquiry report, the petitioner
was held to be guilty of the charges levelled
against him.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances,
this Court is of the considered view that
preliminary inquiry was conducted prior to
taking a decision for conducting a regular
inquiry to test the veracity of the
allegations made in the complaint and it is
only when the allegations were found to be
correct, decision is taken to initiate regular
disciplinary
proceedings
against
a
Government servant who is responsible for
the misconduct.
15. It is in the aforesaid
circumstances, preliminary inquiry has
limited role which starts with testing the
veracity of the allegations and ends when
its recommendations with regard to the
initiation
of
regular
disciplinary
proceedings
or
otherwise,
against
a
Government servant. When decision is
taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against a Government servant, then it is
incumbent
upon
the
prosecution
to
establish the charges levelled against him
during
the
course
of
disciplinary
proceedings/inquiry. It is the very purpose
of the inquiry where evidence and material
sought to be proved against a Government
servant, have to be tested during the course
of such inquiry. This can be in the shape of
documentary evidence or oral evidence or
any other material evidence which can
relate/lead towards culpability of the
Government servant. Such purpose would
be also in conformity with the principles of
natural justice inasmuch as the Government
servant is entitled to rebut and disapprove
the material and evidence, on the basis of
which charges are sought to be proved.
Once the material is adduced during the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against a
Government servant, he gets adequate
opportunity to repudiate the allegations and
the question of veracity of the material
produced therein, thereby giving him full
opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry
which is the purpose and object of such
inquiry.

16. In case preliminary inquiry
report is sought to be relied against a
Government servant, then the same can be
utilized where such Government servant
has been associated in the preliminary
inquiry and in case he was not associated
with the preliminary inquiry then all the
facts which have been proved in the
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preliminary inquiry have to be proved in
the regular inquiry also. Merely giving
copy of the preliminary inquiry report to
the delinquent Government servant, would
in itself would not suffice compliance of
the principles of natural justice. Persons
whose statements have been recorded
during the preliminary inquiry, have to be
produced in the inquiry also to enable the
petitioner to cross examine them. It is for
this very reason that the basic rule should
be followed that all the charges should be
proved on the basis of material placed
during the disciplinary proceedings itself.

17. This aspect of the matter was
also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala Vs.
State of Gujarat and Another, (2013) 4
SCC 301.

18. It has been further submitted
that the observations of the Apex Court in
the case of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra) have
been relied upon by the Court in the case of
Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3325. In the case of
Satyendra Singh (supra), the Apex Court
has observed as under :

"14. In the case of Roop
Singh Negi, this Court held that
mere production of documents is
not
enough,
contents
of
documentary evidence have to be
proved by examining witnesses.
Relevant extract thereof reads as
under:-
"14.
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.
15.
We
have
noticed
hereinbefore that the only basic
evidence whereupon reliance has
been placed by the enquiry officer
was the purported confession made
by the appellant before the police.
According to the appellant, he was
forced
to
sign
on
the
said
confession, as he was tortured in
the police station. The appellant
being an employee of the Bank, the
said confession should have been
proved. Some evidence should
have been brought on record to
show that he had indulged in
stealing the bank draft book.
Admittedly, there was no direct
evidence. Even there was no
indirect evidence. The tenor of the
report
demonstrates
that
the
enquiry officer had made up his
mind to find him guilty as otherwise
he would not have proceeded on
the basis that the offence was
committed in such a manner that no
evidence was left.
...
3 All. Dinesh Kumar Kureel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
531
19.
The
judgment
and
decree
passed
against
the
respondent in Narinder Mohan
Arya case [(2006) 4 SCC 713 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had attained
finality. In the said suit, the enquiry
report
in
the
disciplinary
proceeding was considered, the
same was held to have been based
on no evidence. The appellant
therein
in
the
aforementioned
situation filed a writ petition
questioning the validity of the
disciplinary proceeding, the same
was dismissed. This Court held that
when a crucial finding like forgery
was arrived at on evidence which is
non est in the eye of the law, the
civil court would have jurisdiction
to interfere in the matter. This
Court emphasised that a finding
can be arrived at by the enquiry
officer if there is some evidence on
record. ..."
(emphasis supplied)
15.
Same
view
was
reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, wherein,
this Court held that even in an exparte inquiry, it is the duty of the
Inquiry Officer to examine the
evidence
presented
by
the
Department to find out whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved.
The relevant observations made in
Saroj
Kumar
Sinha
are
as
follows:-
"28. An inquiry officer
acting in a quasi-judicial 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.
....
33. As noticed earlier in the
present
case
not
only
the
respondent has been denied access
to documents sought to be relied
upon against him, but he has been
condemned unheard as the inquiry
officer failed to fix any date for
conduct of the enquiry. In other
words, not a single witness has
been examined in support of the
charges
levelled
against
the
respondent.
The
High
Court,
therefore, has rightly observed
that the entire proceedings are
vitiated having been conducted in
complete
violation
of
the
principles of natural justice and
total disregard of fair play. The
respondent
never
had
any
opportunity at any stage of the
proceedings to offer an explanation
against the allegations made in the
charge-sheet."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the case of Nirmala
J. Jhala, this Court held that
evidence recorded in a preliminary
inquiry cannot be used for a
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regular inquiry as the delinquent is
not associated with it and the
opportunity
to
cross-examine
persons examined in preliminary
inquiry is not given. Relevant
extract thereof reads as under:-
"42. A Constitution Bench
of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v.
North Eastern Railway [AIR 1960
SC 992], held that the purpose of
holding a preliminary inquiry in
respect of a particular alleged
misconduct is only for the purpose
of finding a particular fact and
prima facie, to know as to whether
the alleged misconduct has been
committed and on the basis of the
findings recorded in preliminary
inquiry, no order of punishment can
be passed. It may be used only to
take a view as to whether a regular
disciplinary proceeding against the
delinquent is required to be held.
43.
Similarly
in
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v.
Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 1854]
a Constitution Bench of this Court
while taking a similar view held
that preliminary inquiry should not
be confused with regular inquiry.
The preliminary inquiry is not
governed by the provisions of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India. Preliminary inquiry may be
held ex parte, for it is merely for
the satisfaction of the Government
though usually for the sake of
fairness, an explanation may be
sought
from
the
government
servant even at such an inquiry. But
at that stage, he has no right to be
heard as the inquiry is merely for
the satisfaction of the Government
as to whether a regular inquiry
must be held. The Court further
held as under :
"12.
...
There
must
therefore be no confusion between
the two enquiries and it is only
when the government proceeds to
hold a departmental enquiry for the
purpose
of
inflicting
on
the
government servant one of the three
major punishments indicated in
Article 311 that the government
servant is entitled to the protection
of that article [, nor prior to that]."
44. In Narayan Dattatraya
Ramteerthakhar
v.
State
of
Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 299 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 152 : AIR 1997
SC 2148] this Court dealt with the
issue and held as under:
"... a preliminary inquiry
has nothing to do with the enquiry
conducted after issue of chargesheet. The preliminary enquiry is
only
to
find
out
whether
disciplinary enquiry should be
initiated against the delinquent.
Once regular enquiry is held under
the Rules, the preliminary enquiry
loses its importance and, whether
preliminary
enquiry
was
held
strictly in accordance with law or
by observing principles of natural
justice of (sic) nor, remains of no
consequence."
45. In view of the above, it
is evident that the evidence recorded
in preliminary inquiry cannot be
used in regular inquiry as the
delinquent is not associated with it,
and opportunity to cross-examine
the persons examined in such
inquiry is not given. Using such
evidence would be violative of the
principles of natural justice."
3 All. Dinesh Kumar Kureel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
533
19. It is for the aforesaid reasons
that only material relied in holding that
charges against petitioner are proved in the
preliminary inquiry and as such this Court
finds that the inquiry proceedings itself has
been vitiated.

20. Apart from the above, it is
noticed that after the inquiry was over, the
Inquiry Officer had sought for additional
material in the form of Measure Book and
such
material
was
handed
over
on
09.05.2023. No date, time and place was
fixed for the additional material to be
placed before the Inquiry Officer nor were
copies of the Measure Book were ever
supplied to the petitioner, nor was he ever
confronted with the additional material and
only the inquiry report was prepared and
handed over to the Disciplinary Authority.

21. Accordingly, not confronting
the delinquent Government servant with the
material sought to be adduced against him
during the inquiry, vitiates the entire
proceedings
inasmuch
as,
delinquent
Government servant is not given any
opportunity to defend himself and rely
upon the material, without first giving it to
the delinquent Government servant, itself is
violative of the golden rule of affording fair
opportunity of hearing and on this ground
also the inquiry stands vitiated.

22. Considering the submissions
made on behalf of petitioner that despite
taking all the grounds assailing the inquiry
report and also charges leveled against the
petitioner, in the reply to the show cause
notice, the Disciplinary Authority while
passing the impugned order has not
considered the grounds raised and in the
most mechanical manner, relying upon the
inquiry report has passed the order of
punishment against petitioner.
23. Specifically, it was stated in
para V of the reply given by the petitioner
that preliminary inquiry conducted by a
three member Committee was not complete
in itself and was conducted without
associating the petitioner and accordingly,
same could not have been relied upon by
the
Inquiry
Officer.
Despite
raising
aforesaid
objections,
the
Disciplinary
Authority did not consider the said
objections and passed the impugned order.

24. It is noticed that very purpose
of giving show cause notice is to elicit
objections to the inquiry report and when
ever such objections are raised, the
Disciplinary Authority is bound to consider
each one of them and can either accept or
reject them after giving due consideration
and reasons for the same. In case any
objection is raised and same is not
considered by the Disciplinary Authority, it
would be a ground in itself to render such
an order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority arbitrary inasmuch as, it defies
the basic principle of fairness in the
proceedings being conducted by him.

25. One of the main reasons for
providing such elaborate procedure is to
provide full opportunity to the delinquent
Government servant to defend himself in
such proceedings. He can defend himself
by either adducing evidence in his favour
indicating that the charges are false or he
can challenge the veracity of the material
adduced in the disciplinary inquiry which
may impeach concurrence of the charges.
In either of the two situations, one of the
basic requirement for the inquiry officer as
well as Disciplinary Authority is to
carefully consider all such objections raised
by the delinquent Government servant and
it is only after due consideration, he can
either accept or reject the objections raised
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the delinquent Government servant after
giving reasons for the same.

26. In the present case, it is noticed
that despite specific objections being raised
by the delinquent Government servant with
regard to the preliminary inquiry conducted
by a three member Committee, no
consideration was made by him at the time
of passing the impugned order and this in
itself, renders the impugned order illegal
and arbitrary and liable for interference by
this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

27. It is for the aforesaid reasons,
this Court finds that there are serious
infirmities in the inquiry report dated
23.06.2023 as well as impugned order of
punishment dated 06.11.2024.

28. In the aforesaid circumstances
and considering the allegations levelled
against petitioner and also the time which
has lapsed during the said period, it would
not be equitable to remit the matter back to
the inquiry officer. This Court further finds
that apart from the preliminary inquiry
report there was no other cogent material
adduced by the respondents in support of
the charges, is available, hence it would not
be in the fitness of things to remit the
matter back to the inquiry officer for
inquiring the matter afresh.

29. In the light of above, writ
petition is allowed. The impugned orders
dated 06.11.2024 as well as 19.10.2024 are
hereby set aside.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 534
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.03.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 5027 of 2021

Ompal Singh Irrigation Supervisor
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Atipriya Gautam, Gaurav Bishan, Lal Chandra
Srivastava, Neeraj Srivastava, Vijay Gautam (Sr.
Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Mandamus - U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules,
1961 - Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for
Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020 -
Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension
and Validation Act, 2021 - Retrospective
Amendment Effect - Scope and Limits -
Legislative power cannot be exercised to
undo a judgment under which rights of
parties have crystallized - Impermissibility
of undoing a mandamus that has become
final between parties by an executive order
or even legislation - If in the exercise of
powers of judicial review under Article 226
of the Constitution, a mandamus is issued
by the High Court ordering authorities, who
were parties to the lis, to do something or
forbear
from
doing
it,
a
subsequent
amendment to the law by the legislature
cannot undo the mandamus that has
become final between parties. The state of
the law, on the foot of which that
mandamus has been issued, may be
changed
by
the
legislature
by
an
amendment to the statute, but that would
be a change that would govern future
transactions between parties. A judgment
that has become final inter partes and led to
a mandamus, cannot be undone by the
supervening amendment to the law. A
judgment that has become final between
parties on a given state of the law, can only
be set aside at the instance of the party
aggrieved by carrying an appeal (Para 16,
17)