# Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh Mahur v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 973
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 15424 of 2025
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-chandra-bhushan-singh-mahur-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54088
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

1 All. Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh Mahur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
973
particularly widow and minor members thereof is also a sine qua non as indicated in Rule - 7 of the
Rules of 1974.

14. In such circumstances, the Head of Office is required to adjudicate not only with regard to
dependency of a family member of a deceased employee but also the suitability of person applying
for such compassionate appointment who will also be required to take care of the widow and minor
members of the deceased family.

15. In the present case, it is evident that although petitioner has applied for compassionate
appointment on the basis of a registered Will, but in the considered opinion of this Court, the said
factor would be irrelevant for purposes of consideration of his application for compassionate
appointment. It is incumbent upon the Head of Office to consider applications of petitioner as well
as opposite party No.4 only in accordance with Rules of 1974, particularly Rules 2, 6 and 7 thereof.

16. It is also admitted between the parties that there is no Divorce Decree granted between the
deceased and the opposite party No.4, who therefore continues with a status of wife of the deceased
and is an aspect required to be considered by the Head of Office. Mere fact of her being estranged
from the deceased does not have any relevant role particularly since as per impugned order itself,
the deceased had a daughter, namely, Km. Alka whose rights in case she is an adult would also
require consideration.

17. In view of discussion made here-in-above, it is evident that impugned order dated 18.11.2025 has
been passed without taking into account relevant Rules of 1974 and is therefore quashed by issuance of a
Writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite
party No.3, i.e., Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Provincial Section, Lakhimpur Kheri to
decide the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner as well as opposite
party No.4, Smt. Aruna Devi afresh in light of Rules of 1974 and in light of observations made here-inabove, expeditiously, within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served
upon the authority concerned. For the said purpose, opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to
petitioner as well as all relevant members of family of deceased including the daughter.

18. Consequently, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to
bear their own costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 973
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ A No. 15424 of 2025

Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh Mahur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Whether disciplinary proceedings imposing penalty of withholding two increments and censure entry under
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 are vitiated for non-examination of witnesses,
non-following procedure under Rule 7, and non-consideration of reply to show cause notice; and whether
petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits post-retirement on 28.02.2025.

Headnotes
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 --- r.7 --- Disciplinary Proceedings
--- Major Penalty --- No witnesses proposed in charge-sheet by Enquiry Officer or defence reply -
-- No requirement for oral evidence --- Enquiry Officer analyses documents supplied with
charge-sheet --- Procedure followed; fairness evident from partial exoneration (2/3 charges
proved).

Held:

Where charge-sheet relies solely on documents (preliminary enquiry report supplied to charged officer) with
no witnesses proposed by either side, no oral evidence recording/cross-examination mandated under r.7(vii);
Enquiry Officer may conclude on available material-Discretion to summon witnesses exists but not exercised
here- Show cause notice post-enquiry with reply considered-no violation-Proceedings valid-penalty upheld.
[Paras 9-14]

U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 --- Retiral Benefits --- Penalty
upheld --- Entitlement to leave encashment, gratuity, pension fixation subject to penalty effect
(withholding increments).
HELD:
Post-retirement (28.02.2025), petitioner entitled to all retiral dues except impact of upheld penalty-Direction
issued to respondent no.1 for payment and pension fixation accordingly. [Para 16-17] (E-14)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts / Statutes
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999;
U.P. Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act,
1976.

List of Keywords
Disciplinary proceedings; Major penalty; No witnesses; Charge-sheet documents; Show cause reply; Retiral
benefits; Pension fixation; Leave encashment; Gratuity.

Case Arising From
Order dated 05.10.2023 imposing penalty of withholding two increments and censure (Writ-A
No.12078/2024); representation dated 27.08.2025 for retiral dues/pension (Writ-A No.15424/2025).

Appearance for Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Bhupesh Kumar Singh, Sri Vipin Chandra Lal.
For the Respondents: Sri Vishal Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishal, learned
Standing Counsel for the State.
1 All. Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh Mahur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
975

2. Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed by the petitioner herein, the first petition
being Writ- A No. 12078 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 05.10.2023, whereby
the penalty of withholding the two increments of the petitioner and a censure entry was made
against the petitioner herein and second Writ-A No. 15424 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner
for seeking a direction to the respondent no.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated
27.08.2025 with regard to payments of leave encashment, gratuity, etc. and fixation of the regular
pension to the petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had been working as Senior Homeopathic
Officer at Government Homeopathic Dispensary, Shankargarh, Jaunpur and he retired on 28th
February 2025 from Jaunpur. Prior to that, he was working as Officiating District Homeopathic
Officer, Bulandshahr. One Naresh Kumar was the pharmacist working under the petitioner here at
District Bulandshahr. He had submitted a written complaint against the petitioner. Thereupon, the
preliminary enquiry was conducted and a report dated 12.10.2021 was submitted by the Chief
Development Officer, Bulandshahr, while issuing the warning to both the complainant Naresh
Kumar, Pharmacist, as well as the petitioner herein to be careful in their behavior against each
other as well as against the senior officers.

4. In the meantime, the Director, Homeopathy, Uttar Pradesh has directed the Joint Director,
Education/ Enquiry Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry against the allegations made by said
Naresh Kumar, Pharmacist against the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted by Prof. Vijay Kumar
Pushkar and the preliminary enquiry report was submitted recommending the suspension of the
petitioner and to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and also to transfer
Naresh Kumar, Pharmacist to some other distant district and to initiate strict action against him as
well.

5. On the basis of the aforementioned preliminary inquiry the petitioner was suspended and
Dr. Prof. Anand Kumar Chaturvedi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to prepare the charge
sheet against the petitioner herein, which was duly approved by the Additional Chief Secretary.
The aforementioned charge sheet dated 22nd March 2022 was duly served upon the petitioner.
Having received the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply to the aforementioned charge
sheet on 10.04.2022. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforementioned charge sheet the
Enquiry Officer has not proposed any witness to be examined and so far as the documentary
evidence is concerned, only the report of the preliminary enquiry was made the basis of the charges
leveled against the petitioner. The copy of the said report dated 08.12.2021, which was relied upon
for framing the charges, has also been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner, though has
submitted his reply on 10.04.2022, however, did not propose to examine any witness in his support
nor he proposed to bring on record any documentary evidence.

6. Having received the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has concluded
the proceedings and submitted its report on 29.06.2022. On receipt of the enquiry report, the
Additional Chief Secretary issued a show cause notice dated 03.08.2022 to the petitioner calling for
the punishment to be awarded to the petitioner with regard to the two charges, which were found to
have been proved against the petitioner out of three charges leveled in the charge sheet.
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. The petitioner herein submitted his response dated 05.08.2022. Thereupon, the impugned
order dated 05.10.2023 has imposed the punishment of withholding the two increments as well as
passing a censure entry against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed
Writ-A No. 12078 of 2024. It is also pertinent to mention here that against the suspension order, the
petitioner has filed Writ-A No. 5723 of 2023 and by the order dated 28.04.2023, the petitioner was
reinstated and, the said petition was disposed of with permission to carry on the disciplinary
enquiry and conclude the same. Subsequently, the petitioner herein was superannuated on
28.02.2025. However, due to the aforementioned punishment order passed against the petitioner, all
his retiral dues were not granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed another Writ-A
No. 15424 of 2025 seeking a direction for payment of leave encashment, gratuity and regular
pension to the petitioner.

8. The contention learned counsel for the petitioner is that while conducting the enquiry and
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has failed to conduct the
enquiry in a fair manner and has not followed the procedure as provided under Rule-7 of the U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short 'Rules, 1999). No witness has
been examined in support of the allegations made in the charge sheet against the petitioner nor any
further opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to be heard before submitting the enquiry
report. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the disciplinary authority has also
not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued to him after
submission of the enquiry report and, finally, the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 has been passed
against the petitioner. He further submits that non-examination of the witnesses as well as nongrant of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the enquiry report is vitiated, and since in the
impugned order the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been considered,
therefore, the same is also vitiated. Therefore, the petitioner seeks quashing of the enquiry report as
well as the impugned order whereby his two increments were withheld by the respondents and a
censure entry was made against the petitioner.

9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the state submits that the proper procedure
as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 have been followed by the Enquiry Officer as well as
by the disciplinary authority. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in the charge sheet
proposed, the Enquiry Officer has not relied upon any witness and no witness was proposed to be
examined during the enquiry. Rather, the enquiry report which was submitted on the basis of the
preliminary enquiry was relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. Copy of the same was supplied along
with the charge sheet to the petitioner herein. In response to the charge sheet, the petitioner has not
proposed to examine any witness in support of his defence nor has proposed to produce any
document in his defence. Thus, there was no witness proposed in the charge sheet, nor any witness
was proposed on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Enquiry Officer
to examine any witness in this case. Though the Enquiry Officer has ample discretion to examine
any of the witnesses so desired by the Enquiry Officer or call for any record required by it for
concluding the enquiry. However, the Enquiry Officer in its discretion has chosen not to examine
any of the witnesses merely because no witness was examined, the enquiry report cannot be said to
be vitiated.
1 All. Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh Mahur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
977

10. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the state that the Enquiry
Officer has followed the proper procedure and considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and
on analysis of the entire material available on record, has submitted its report in which out of the
three charges, he has found two charges proved against the petitioner and for one of the charges, he
was exonerated. Thereupon, proper show cause notice was issued along with the enquiry report to
the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The Petitioner also submitted its reply and after due
consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed.
Therefore, there is no technical flaw in the entire proceeding against the petitioner herein. In view
thereof, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 against the petitioner.

11. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this court
has carefully gone through the record of the case. Before proceeding further, both the parties have
heavily relied upon Rule 7 of the 1999 rules which reads as under;

"7. Procedure for imposing major penalties.- Before imposing any major penalty on a
Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner-

(i) The Disciplinary Authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an
Authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges.

(ii) The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be
reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall
be approved by the Disciplinary Authority:

Provided that where the Appointing Authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be
approved by the Principal Secretary or the secretary, as the case may be, of the concerned
department.

(iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to
the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed
documentary evidences and the name of witnesses proposed to prove the same along with oral
evidences, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet.

(iv) The charged Government servant shall be required to put in a written statement of
his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of
issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in
the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be
informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will
be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the
inquiry ex parte.

(v) The charge-sheet, along with the copy of documentary evidences mentioned therein
and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government
servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records in case the
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner the charge-sheet shall be served by
publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation:

Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its
copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same
before the Inquiry Officer.

(vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry
Officer shall submit his report to the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of such admission.

(vii) Where the charged Government servant denies the charges the Inquiry Officer shall
proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in
presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such
witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the
oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be
produced in his defence;

Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call
a witness.

(viii) The Inquiry Officer may summon any witness to give evidence or require any
person to produce documents before his in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witness and Production of Documents) Act
1976.

(ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or
from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to
charges.

(x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the
inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on his or having
knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case
the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in
absence of the charged Government servant.

(xi) The Disciplinary Authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by an order
appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to
present on its behalf the case in support of the charge.

(xii) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to
present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the
presenting officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner or the
Disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits

Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases:
1 All. Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh Mahur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
979

(i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has
led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(ii) Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied, that for reason to be recorded by it in
writing, that it is not reasonably impracticable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these
rules; or

(iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is
not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules."

12. From the perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is apparent that when any major penalty is
proposed to be imposed on a government servant, disciplinary inquiry is to be conducted either by
the disciplinary authority itself or by any subordinate officer so appointed by the disciplinary
authority for the purpose. The Enquiry Officer, with the approval of the disciplinary authority, shall
frame the charges and supply the copy of the charge sheet to the government servant along with the
material in support of the charge sheet. In the charge sheet, it was also obligated upon the Enquiry
Officer to mention the name of the witnesses proposed to be examined during the enquiry
proceedings as well as the material to be relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. Sub-Rule-IV of Rule7 mandates upon the charged government servant to submit its reply / written statement to the
charge sheet within the stipulated period, and in his reply, he was also obligated to categorically
mention as to whether he desires to cross-examine any of the witnesses proposed in the charge
sheet or whether he wants to produce any witness or any document in support of his defense. SubRule-V provides for the procedure how the charge sheet is to be served upon the charged
government servant. Sub-Rule-VI provides if the charges are admitted by the charged government
servant, the Enquiry Officer shall submit its report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such
admission. Sub-Rule-(vii) provides when the charges are denied by the government servant, then
the Enquiry Officer shall proceed to call for the witnesses proposed in the charge sheet and record
their oral evidence in presence of the charged government servant and shall also afford the
opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses by the charged government servant and after
recording the evidence of the witnesses proposed in the charge sheet, he will also call for the
witnesses proposed by the charged government servant in his reply/written statement and thereupon
conclude the proceeding, apply its mind, and submit the report.

13. In view of the aforesaid rules, if applied to the facts of the case, in the instant charge sheet,
no witness was proposed by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, there was no question of examining
any witness on the part of the Enquiry Officer. Likewise, the petitioner has also not proposed any
witness in his reply in support of his defence. Therefore, oral examination of any witness is not
called for in the instant case at all. Therefore, it was only the charge sheet as well as the material
available on record, copies whereof were already supplied to the petitioner herein, have been
analyzed by the Enquiry Officer and thereupon the enquiry report has been submitted.

14. Therefore, this Court do not find any illegality in the procedure adopted by the Enquiry
Officer while conducting the enquiry against the petitioner herein and submitting the enquiry report
against the petitioner. The fairness of the enquiry is apparent as out of the three charges, the
Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner for one charge and has found guilty of the two
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charges. Ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner in terms of Rule-9 on submission of the
enquiry report. The reply was submitted, which has been duly considered by the disciplinary
authority and thereupon the impugned order of withholding two increments of the petitioner and a
censure entry has been made against the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court finds that the entire
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is fully in consonance with the Rules, 1999.

15. Therefore, this Court do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order
dated 05.10.2023 passed against the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the Writ- A No. 12078 of 2024
is hereby dismissed.

16. Since the punishment order dated 05.08.2023 has already been upheld by this Court, still
the petitioner is definitely entitled for other benefits barring the two increments on his retirement,
which has taken place on 28th February 2025.

17. In view thereof, the Writ- A No. 15424 of 2025 is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent no.1 to grant all the retiral dues as well as the fixation of regular pension etc. including
the leave encashment and gratuity etc., to which the petitioner is entitled to subject to the order
dated 05.10.2023 passed by the disciplinary authority.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 980
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 18923 of 2025

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

Issue for Consideration
(1) Permissibility of initiating disciplinary proceeding for a misconduct not committed during service.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment - Dismissal - Assistant Teacher - Charge
of misconduct - Petitioner performed marriage in the year 2009 with a person already married -
Appointment was made in 2015 after 6 years to such marriage - Provision of Conduct Rules was
invoked - Permissibility. (E-1)
Held : Punitive provisions, such as those contained in the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules,
1956 or the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999, apply only to persons who are validly appointed and are
government servants in the eyes of law. These provisions cannot be invoked to punish a person for an act
which renders her ineligible for appointment itself - A violation of Rule 12 may render the appointment
voidable, subject to adjudication, but cannot attract disciplinary punishment unless the appointment was
secured by fraud, suppression of material facts, or deliberate misrepresentation. In the absence of such
elements, initiation of disciplinary proceedings would be legally unsustainable - The case does not involve