# Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 472
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-30
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5698 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-amod-kumar-sachan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53389
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
- Right to Legal Assistance - Supply of
Documents
-
Petitioner,
a
University
employee,
suspended
and
facing
departmental
enquiry
-
Denied
legal
assistance and photocopies of 5133 pages
of
relevant
documents,
allowed
only
inspection - Enquiry Committee included a
retired High Court Judge - Proceedings
concluded treating petitioner's tentative
reply as final.

Held: Denial of legal assistance when the
Enquiry Officer is legally trained is violative of
principles of natural justice [J.K. Aggarwal;
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay;
Ramesh Chandra]. Denial of photocopies of
relevant documents also unfair [Saroj Kumar
Sinha].
Disciplinary
proceedings
revived;
authorities directed to provide photocopies,
permit
legal
assistance,
and
conclude
proceedings before petitioner's superannuation.

Writ Petition partly allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allowances. The question of arrears of
salary shall abide by the final event in the
proceedings to be taken afresh by the
respondents.

106. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 472
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 5698 of 2025

Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gaurav Mehrotra, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra,
Ritika Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shubham Tripathi

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
- Right to Legal Assistance - Supply of
Documents
-
Petitioner,
a
University
employee,
suspended
and
facing
departmental
enquiry
-
Denied
legal
assistance and photocopies of 5133 pages
of
relevant
documents,
allowed
only
inspection - Enquiry Committee included a
retired High Court Judge - Proceedings
concluded treating petitioner's tentative
reply as final.

Held: Denial of legal assistance when the
Enquiry Officer is legally trained is violative of
principles of natural justice [J.K. Aggarwal;
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay;
Ramesh Chandra]. Denial of photocopies of
relevant documents also unfair [Saroj Kumar
Sinha].
Disciplinary
proceedings
revived;
authorities directed to provide photocopies,
permit
legal
assistance,
and
conclude
proceedings before petitioner's superannuation.

Writ Petition partly allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs
Dilip Kumar Raghavendra Nath Nadkarni & ors.,
(1983) 1 SCC 124

2.
J.K.
Aggarwal
Vs
Haryana
Seeds
Development Corporation Ltd. & ors., (1991) 2
SCC 283

3. Ramesh Chandra Vs Delhi University & ors.,
(2015) 5 SCC 549

4. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha,
(2010) 2 SCC 772

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

1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra,
learned counsel assisted by Ms. Ritika
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri
Pradeep
Kumar
Singh,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-opposite party No.1 and Shri Asit
Chaturvedi,
learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted by Shri Shubham Tripathi, learned
counsel for the opposite party Nos.2, 3, 4, 5
& 6.

2. Shri Shubham Tripathi has filed
short counter affidavit and Ms. Ritika
Singh has filed supplementary affidavit,
which are taken on the record.

3. By means of this writ petition,
the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-

 "(I) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned decision dated
30.03.2025
and
03.05.2025
of
the
5 All. Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473
Respondent No.5, copy whereof is
contained as Annexure Nos.2 and 3 to this
writ petition.

(II) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to grant
permission to the petitioner for providing
legal assistance in the pending disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner.

(III) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to provide the
photocopies of the relevant documents to
the petitioner relating to the charges
alleged
in
the
Charge-sheet
dated
02.09.2024, on the cost to be borne by the
petitioner, prior to providing aforesaid
with the disciplinary committee.

(IV) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned suspension order
dated 05.09.2024, issued by the Respondent
No.6, copy whereof is contained as
Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

(V) to issued a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned decision dated
30.03.2025 of the Respondent No.5, copy
whereof is contained as Annexure No.2 to
this writ petition."

4. By means of the impugned
decisions dated 30.03.2025 and 03.05.2025,
the
petitioner
has
been
refused
for
providing
legal
assistance
and
also
providing the photocopies of the relevant
documents as sought by the petitioner
running into as many as 5133 pages.

5. In support of his Prayer No.II,
learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn
attention of this Court towards the dictum
of
Apex
Court
rendered
in
re:J.K.
Aggarwal vs. Haryana Seeds Development
Corporation Ltd. and others reported in
(1991) 2 SCC 283, Board of Trustees of
the Port of Bombay vs. Dilip Kumar
Raghavendra Nath Nadkarni and others
reported in (1983) 1 SCC 124 and Ramesh
Chandra vs. Delhi University and others
reported in (2015) 5 SCC 549. In the case
of Ramesh Chandra (supra), the aforesaid
judgments have been considered in paras68 & 69 and observation on such point has
been given from paras-67, 68, 69 & 70,
which read as under:-

"67. The enquiry officer herein
being a retired Judge of the High Court is a
person
of
vast
legal
acumen
and
experience. The presenting officer also
would be a person who had sufficient
experience in presenting case before the
enquiry officer. In this background, it is
also required to consider whether an
application of a delinquent employee
seeking permission to be represented
through a legally trained and qualified
lawyer should be allowed or not.
 68. In Port of Bombay v.
Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni
[(1983) 1 SCC 124 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 61] ,
this Court observed: (SCC pp. 129-30 &
132, paras 10 & 12)

"10.
...
Now
if
the
rules
prescribed for such an enquiry did not
place an embargo on the right of the
delinquent employee to be represented by a
legal practitioner, the matter would be in
the discretion of the enquiry officer
whether looking to the nature of charges,
the type of evidence and complex or simple
issues that may arise in the course of
enquiry, the delinquent employee in order
to afford a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself should be permitted to
appear through a legal practitioner.
***

12. ... In our view we have
reached a stage in our onward march to
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fair play in action that where in an enquiry
before a domestic tribunal the delinquent
officer is pitted against a legally trained
mind, if he seeks permission to appear
through a legal practitioner the refusal to
grant this request would amount to denial
of a reasonable request to defend himself
and the essential principles of natural
justice would be violated."

69. In J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana
Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. [(1991) 2
SCC 283 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 483 : (1991)
16 ATC 480] , this Court held that the
denial of the assistance of a legal
practitioner in inquiry proceedings would
be unfair. This Court held as follows :
(SCC pp. 286-87, para 8)

"8. It would appear that in the
inquiry, the respondent Corporation was
represented
by
its
Personnel
and
Administration Manager who is stated to
be a man of law. The rule itself recognises
that where the charges are so serious as to
entail a dismissal from service the inquiry
authority may permit the services of a
lawyer. This rule vests a discretion. In the
matter of exercise of this discretion one of
the relevant factors is whether there is
likelihood of the combat being unequal
entailing a miscarriage or failure of justice
and a denial of a real and reasonable
opportunity for defence by reasons of the
appellant being pitted against a presenting
officer who is trained in law. Legal Adviser
and a lawyer are for this purpose
somewhat liberally construed and must
include 'whoever assists or advises on facts
and in law must be deemed to be in the
position of a legal adviser'. In the last
analysis, a decision has to be reached on a
case-to-case basis on the situational
particularities and the special requirements
of justice of the case. It is unnecessary,
therefore, to go into the larger question
'whether as a sequel to an adverse verdict
in a domestic enquiry serious civil and
pecuniary consequences are likely to ensue,
in order to enable the person so likely to
suffer such consequences with a view to
giving him a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself, on his request, should be
permitted to appear through a legal
practitioner' which was kept open in Port
of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath
Nadkarni [(1983) 1 SCC 124 : 1983 SCC
(L&S) 61] . However, it was held in that
case : (SCC p. 132, para 12)

'12. ... In our view we have
reached a stage in our onward march to
fair play in action that where in an enquiry
before a domestic tribunal the delinquent
officer is pitted against a legally trained
mind, if he seeks permission to appear
through a legal practitioner the refusal to
grant this request would amount to denial
of a reasonable request to defend himself
and the essential principles of natural
justice would be violated.'"

70. In view of the law laid down by this
Court, we are of the view that if any person
who is or was a legal practitioner, including
a retired Hon'ble Judge is appointed as an
enquiry officer in an inquiry initiated
against an employee, the denial of
assistance of a legal practitioner to the
charged employee would be unfair."

6. In support of Prayer No.III, Shri
Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that contention of
the petitioner has been fortified in catena of
pronouncements, one of such has been
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 in re: State
of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Saroj
Kumar
Singh,
wherein
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that an
employee facing a disciplinary enquiry is
entitled to all the relevant statements,
documents and other materials to enable
5 All. Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
475
him to have a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself in the disciplinary enquiry.

7. Shri Gaurav Mehrotra has
submitted that the Apex Court in re: Saroj
Kumar Sinha (supra) has considered so
many judgments on identical issues.

8. Shri Gaurav Mehrotra has placed
reliance on Annexure No.21 of the writ
petition, which is tentative reply of the
petitioner dated 10.02.2024 to the Chargesheet
bearing
No.KGMU/VC/93/2024
dated 02.09.2024. In the aforesaid tentative
reply, the petitioner has indicated the
relevance of those documents thoroughly.
In the aforesaid reply, the petitioner has
indicated that those documents are having
5133 pages and photocopy thereof may be
provided on his cost and providing the
photocopies thereof, the maximum time of
48 hours would be consumed, making
prayer that in the interest of justice and to
ensure compliance of the principles of
natural justice the petitioner may be
provided the copies of those documents so
that the petitioner would be able to put
forth his proper defence and complete
reply.

9. Shri Gaurav Mehrotra has also
submitted that the petitioner had filed one
reference under Section 53 of the King
George Medical University Act, 2002 (herein-after referred to as the "University Act,
2002") against the suspension order dated
05.10.2024 wherein no decisions have been
taken till date but which has been not pressed
by the petitioner vide representation dated
23.05.2025 (Annexure No.SA-1) saying that
the aforesaid reference was filed on wrong
advice as no reference should be filed against
the suspension order. He has apprised the
Court that no decision has been taken on such
representation dated 23.05.2025 also.
10. Per contra, Shri Asit Chaturvedi,
learned Senior Advocate has drawn attention
of this Court towards Annexure No.CA-5,
which is a letter dated 26.05.2025 preferred
by one Smt. Archana Gaharwar, Member
Secretary,
Disciplinary
Committee
addressing to the Vice-Chancellor apprising
that the proceedings of the Disciplinary
Committee
has
been
concluded
on
24.05.2025 and enquiry report has been
prepared which is to be placed before the
Executive Council in the next meeting. This
letter further indicates that enquiry report
being a confidential document, is kept under
sealed envelope to be opened before the
Hon'ble Executive Council in its meeting.
Therefore, Shri Asit Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate has stated that since the
departmental proceedings have already been
concluded, therefore, the prayers prayed in
the writ petition have been rendered
infructuous, hence, the writ petition may be
dismissed.

11. Shri Chaturvedi, learned Senior
Advocate has also informed that the copies of
the relied upon the documents have already
been provided to the petitioner and the copies
of demanded documents are so bulky having
5133 pages, therefore, the petitioner has been
permitted to inspect those documents to
submit his defence reply.

12. Shri Chaturvedi has further
submitted that the petitioner has already
submitted his defence reply to the chargesheet on 01.02.2025 and considering such
reply the disciplinary proceedings have
been concluded on 24.05.2025.

13. On being asked from Shri
Chaturvedi as to why the tentative reply to
the charge-sheet, so submitted by the
petitioner
on
10.02.2025,
has
been
considered as final reply when the
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner has categorically requested that
he would submit his proper and complete
defence reply after getting the photocopies
of the demanded documents which have
not been provided to the petitioner, Shri
Chaturvedi has stated that the petitioner
was adopting delaying tactic so that the
disciplinary proceedings could not be
concluded
with
expedition,
more
particularly, before his retirement on
15.07.2025.

14. Shri Chaturvedi has submitted
that the date of retirement of the petitioner
is 15.07.2025 and if the disciplinary
proceedings are not concluded on or before
15.07.2025,
the petitioner
cannot
be
imposed the punishment pursuant to the
enquiry report. The recital to this effect has
been given in para-11 of the short counter
affidavit.

15. On that, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra
has candidly submitted that though no final
decision has been taken by the Executive
Council of the K.G.M.U., who is the
Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner,
and admittedly the enquiry report has not
yet been prepared and placed before it but
in para-11 of the short counter affidavit, the
deponent has disclosed its mind that the
petitioner would be awarded punishment.
Shri Mehrotra has further submitted that
the Disciplinary Authority may exonerate
the petitioner from the charges if the
defence reply of the petitioner appears to be
satisfactory to the Disciplinary Authority.

16. On being further asked from
Shri Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate
as to why the petitioner has been refused to
grant permission for providing legal
assistance in the disciplinary proceedings in
terms of the judgments of Apex Court in re:
J.K. Aggarwal (supra), Board of Trustees
of the Port of Bombay (supra) and
Ramesh Chandra (supra) as the Enquiry
Committee is having one retired High
Court Judge as a member of the said
Committee, no proper reply could be given
by him. However, he has submitted that
such decision has already been taken by the
Enquiry Committee on 30.03.2025. The
reason so indicated for not providing legal
assistance is that 'it is not imperative to
provide legal practitioner in support of
defence, especially when the Presenting
Officer is also a doctor and Hon'ble Judge
is only one of the member of the
Committee.' The aforesaid decision is
based on the legal opinion of the counsel,
as has been indicated in the aforesaid order
dated 30.03.2025 itself.

17. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
material available on record, it is clear that
the Enquiry Committee is having one
retired High Court Judge as a member,
therefore, in the light of the dictums of
Apex Court rendered in re: J.K. Aggarwal
(supra), Board of Trustees of the Port of
Bombay (supra) and Ramesh Chandra
(supra), the petitioner is entitled to be
provided legal assistance in the disciplinary
proceedings.

18. Since it is an admitted fact that
the petitioner has not been provided the
photocopies of the demanded documents
and he has only been permitted to inspect
those documents which are having 5133
pages, which may not be remembered by
any normal person and the petitioner in his
representation has categorically indicated
the relevance of those documents to submit
/ to put forth his proper defence and
complete reply, so the aforesaid inaction on
the part of the Competent Authority would
be in violation of the settled proposition of
5 All. Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
477
law on the subject settled by the Apex
Court in catena of cases including the case
of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra). The
petitioner could have not filed his proper
defence and complete reply in absence of
those demanded documents, therefore, the
aforesaid inaction is also violative of
principles of natural justice.

19.
Notably,
the
disciplinary
proceedings have been concluded on
24.05.2025
considering
the
tentative
defence reply of the petitioner and such
enquiry report has not been prepared and
placed as yet before the Executive Council
of the University and no final order has
been passed by the Disciplinary Authority/
Executive Council, therefore, undisputedly
the disciplinary proceedings have not been
concluded till date inasmuch as the
disciplinary proceedings are concluded
after passing final order by the Disciplinary
Authority i.e. the Executive Council of the
University.

20. Since against the impugned
suspension the petitioner has filed a
reference
under
Section
53
of
the
University Act, 2002 before the Hon'ble
Governor of U.P. and the Petitioner has
filed an application to withdraw said
reference
vide
representation
dated
23.05.2025 wherein no order has been
passed till date, therefore, the prayer
regarding suspension order may not be
considered at this stage.

21. In view of what has been
considered above, the impugned decision
dated 30.03.2025 (Annexure No.2) is
hereby set aside/quashed, particularly on
the decision whereby the petitioner has
been denied to have legal assistance in the
disciplinary proceedings and to provide the
copies of the demanded documents saying
that
the
petitioner
has
been
given
opportunity to inspect those documents.
Further, since no final decision has been
taken by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the
Executive Council in the disciplinary
proceedings, which are said to have been
concluded on 24.05.2025, therefore, in the
interest
of
justice,
such
enquiry
proceedings are hereby revived/restored.

22. The Competent Authority is
directed to provide the photocopies of the
relevant documents/ demanded documents
to the petitioner relating to the charges
alleged
in
the
charge-sheet
dated
02.09.2024 on the cost to be borne by the
petitioner within a period of seven days
from the date of receipt a certified copy of
this order.

23. The Competent Authority is
further directed to grant permission to the
petitioner for providing legal assistance in
the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner
shall submit his complete defence reply
within a period of seven days from the date
of receipt of the photocopies of the
demanded
documents.
Thereafter,
the
disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted
and concluded, strictly in accordance with
law by affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner, within a period of fifteen
days. Thereafter, such enquiry report shall
be placed before the Executive Council at
the earliest and final decision may be taken
by the Executive Council, strictly in
accordance with law, at the earliest. The
endeavour of the Competent Authority of
the University should be to conclude the
disciplinary proceedings and to pass final
order on or before 15.07.2025 i.e. the date
of superannuation of the petitioner.

24. It is needless to say that the
petitioner
shall
cooperate
in
the
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings and shall not take any
unnecessary adjournment. In case of noncooperation of the petitioner in the enquiry
in question, it may be concluded within
time frame and final decision may be taken
by the Competent Authority.

25. The writ petition is partly
allowed in view of the aforesaid directions.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 478
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 5819 of 2025

Harishankar ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Kaushambi & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prerna Surolia, Ravi Kant Surolia

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Mishra

A. Service Law - UP St. District Court
Service Rules, 2013 - Rules 7(2), 23(7)(i)
&
(ii)
-
Punishment
-
Penalty
of
withholding two annual increment to the
accumulative
effects
-
Disciplinary
proceeding - On being disagreed on
finding of inquiry officer, the disciplinary
authority directed for re-enquiry on the
same
charges
-
Permissibility
-
Competence
of
disciplinary
authority
questioned - Held, disciplinary authority is
well vested with its power to order for reinquiry,
upon
recording
its
own
satisfaction regarding disagreement with
the findings returned by the inquiry officer
- Re-inquiry can be ordered into the same
charges as the disagreement is to be
recorded by the disciplinary authority
upon the findings of the inquiry officer on
charges inquired into. (Para 7 and 9)
B. Practice and procedure - Constitution
of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ -
Maintainability - Alternative remedy -
Held, petitioner has an alternative remedy
of
statutory
appeal
before
the
Administrative Judge against the order
passed by the punishing authority as per
Rule 9 - High Court left it open for the
petitioner to prefer an appeal before the
appellate authority, if so advised. (Para 12
and 14)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Prerna Surolia, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bushra
Maryam, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has questioned the decision taken
by the District Judge, Kaushambi on 7th
August, 2024 to order re-inquiry into the
charges having found the findings returned
by the inquiry officer not agreeable to him.

3.
The
petitioner
has
also
challenged the subsequent inquiry report as
a consequence to the order dated 7th
August, 2024 and also the final decision
taken by the District Judge, Kaushambi/
disciplinary authority imposing penalty in
the nature of two annual increament to the
accumulative effects.

4. The submission advanced by Ms.
Surolia, learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the District Judge, namely the
disciplinary authority was required to set
aside the report of first inquiry before
ordering for re-inquiry inasmuch as on the