# Dr. Kamal Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1050
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-26
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 10229 of 2016
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-kamal-kumar-saxena-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48397
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Misconduct - Suspension
- Disciplinary proceedings - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 3, 7 -Sub rule
(2), 7 sub rule (3), 7 Rule 7, 7 sub rule (4),
7 sub rule (5); Civil Service Regulations:
Article 351-A - When a department
enquiry
is
conducted
against
the
Government servant it cannot be treated
as
a
casual
exercise.
The
enquiry
proceedings also cannot be conducted
with a closed mind. The enquiry officer
has to be wholly unbiased. (Para 17)

It is a settled legal proposition that, once the
Court set asides an order of punishment on the
ground, that the enquiry was not properly
conducted, the Court should not severely
preclude the employer from holding the inquiry
in accordance with law. It must remit the
concerned case to the disciplinary authority, to
conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood
vitiated,
and
to
conclude
the
same
in
accordance with law. However, resorting to such
a
course
depends
upon
the
gravity
of
delinquency involved. (Para 26)

B. The embargo of Article 351-A of Civil
Service Regulations would not come on
the way of the State to conclude the
proceedings from the stage of defect even
though the petitioner has retired. The
departmental proceedings commenced before
the retirement of the petitioner. The impugned
order is unsustainable due to the procedural
5 All. Dr. Kamal Kumar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1051
defect in concluding the enquiry and not owing
to
an
illegality
that
would
vitiate
the
departmental enquiry itself. The charges against
the
petitioner
pertain
to
having
caused
pecuniary loss to the State which can be
pressed even after the retirement of the
petitioner. The recovery, on the charges being
proved, can be made from the pension after
approval of the Hon'ble Governor. (Para 28)

In the present facts and circumstances and
upon perusal of the material documents, the
impugned order dated 13.04.2016, cannot be
sustained as the same has been passed without
following the mandate of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999.
The order dated 13.04.2016, is set aside and
quashed. Liberty is granted with directions to
the first respondent to appoint an enquiry
officer who shall proceed from the stage of the
reply submitted by the petitioner. (Para 29, 30)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority in its order dated 08.01.2021, but
the reply of the petitioner does not disclose
that he has filed any evidence that his
disability is permanent in nature, and his
disability certificate is genuine.

35. The petitioner has enclosed the
disability certificate with the writ petition
appearing on page 97 issued by the office
of Chief Medical Officer, Banda, a perusal
of which discloses that petitioner is
suffering stiffness in the right knee which
caused 40% disability to him, but as per the
said disability certificate, the nature of
disability is temporary and not permanent.
Therefore, in view of the admitted fact that
the nature of disability which the petitioner
suffered is temporary, hence, he is not
entitled to the benefit of Persons with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities,
Protection of Right) and Full Participation
Act 1995, and as such, the disability
certificate could not be issued to the
petitioner.

36. In view of the aforesaid fact and
the settled principles of law laid down by
the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments,
this Court finds that the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
authority ought to have followed the
procedure contemplated under Rules, 1999
before imposing major punishment of
dismissal
is
misconceived
and
not
sustainable in law.

37. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly, dismissed with no order as to
costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1050
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 10229 of 2016

Dr. Kamal Kumar Saxena ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sameer Kalia, Sri Rajat Rajan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Satyanshu Ojha

A. Service Law - Misconduct - Suspension
- Disciplinary proceedings - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 3, 7 -Sub rule
(2), 7 sub rule (3), 7 Rule 7, 7 sub rule (4),
7 sub rule (5); Civil Service Regulations:
Article 351-A - When a department
enquiry
is
conducted
against
the
Government servant it cannot be treated
as
a
casual
exercise.
The
enquiry
proceedings also cannot be conducted
with a closed mind. The enquiry officer
has to be wholly unbiased. (Para 17)

It is a settled legal proposition that, once the
Court set asides an order of punishment on the
ground, that the enquiry was not properly
conducted, the Court should not severely
preclude the employer from holding the inquiry
in accordance with law. It must remit the
concerned case to the disciplinary authority, to
conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood
vitiated,
and
to
conclude
the
same
in
accordance with law. However, resorting to such
a
course
depends
upon
the
gravity
of
delinquency involved. (Para 26)

B. The embargo of Article 351-A of Civil
Service Regulations would not come on
the way of the State to conclude the
proceedings from the stage of defect even
though the petitioner has retired. The
departmental proceedings commenced before
the retirement of the petitioner. The impugned
order is unsustainable due to the procedural
5 All. Dr. Kamal Kumar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1051
defect in concluding the enquiry and not owing
to
an
illegality
that
would
vitiate
the
departmental enquiry itself. The charges against
the
petitioner
pertain
to
having
caused
pecuniary loss to the State which can be
pressed even after the retirement of the
petitioner. The recovery, on the charges being
proved, can be made from the pension after
approval of the Hon'ble Governor. (Para 28)

In the present facts and circumstances and
upon perusal of the material documents, the
impugned order dated 13.04.2016, cannot be
sustained as the same has been passed without
following the mandate of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999.
The order dated 13.04.2016, is set aside and
quashed. Liberty is granted with directions to
the first respondent to appoint an enquiry
officer who shall proceed from the stage of the
reply submitted by the petitioner. (Para 29, 30)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Raj Babu Agnihotri Vs Labour Commissioner,
2002 (20) LCD 1354 (Para 18)

2. St. of Hary. & anr. Vs Rattan Singh, (1982) 1
LLJ 46 (SC) (Para 19)

3. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (9)
etc.etc. Vs B. Karunakar etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074
(Para 26)

4. Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya Vs Secretary,
S.M. School for Girls & ors., (2002) 10 SCC 293
(Para 26)

5. U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs R.S. Pandey &
anr., (2005) 8 SCC 264 (Para 26)

6. U.O.I. Vs Y.S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector, AIR
2009 SC 161 (Para 26)

7. NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA
& Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2112 (Para 27)

8. B.J. Shelat Vs St. of Guj. & Ors., AIR 1978 SC
1109 (Para 27)

9. Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs Punjab National
Bank & Anr., (2007) 9 SCC 15 (Para 27)
10. UCO Bank & anr. Vs Rajinder Lal Capoor,
AIR 2008 SC 1831 (Para 27)

Present petition assails punishment order
dated 13.04.2016.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajat Rajan Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the
State-respondent.

2. Petitioner, a medical officer,
working with the State-respondents was
served
upon
a
charge
sheet
dated
19.09.2012,
levelling
imputation
of
misconduct on two charges alleging to have
caused pecuniary loss to the State. Prior to
issue of the charge sheet, petitioner was
placed under suspension on 11.06.2012.
The disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner is mandated under the Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'Rules
1999'). The petitioner responded by filing
reply on 24.08.2015, denying the charges
and further demanded documents which
were not supplied to him.

3. It appears that the documents were
in the custody of Central Bureau of
Investigation
(C.B.I.).
The
relevant
documents were supplied to the petitioner
on 02.09.2015, calling upon the petitioner
to submit his reply. Petitioner submitted his
reply on 16.09.2015 and further submitted
a list of witnesses he proposed to examine,
which included 100-150 witnesses as noted
in the enquiry report. The enquiry officer
declined to examine the officers as in the
opinion of the enquiry officer they were not
relevant to the charge or for raising defence
by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner was
called upon for personal hearing. Petitioner
appeared on 22.09.2015, before the enquiry
officer and the personal hearing was
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recorded
in
question-answer
format.
Thereafter, vide show cause notice dated
05.11.2015, petitioner came to be served
with an enquiry report calling upon him to
file objections, if any. Petitioner responded
by filing reply to the show cause notice on
21.12.2015. Thereafter, the disciplinary
authority passed the impugned punishment
order dated 13.04.2016, imposing major
punishment of reversion from Level-III to
Level-II and directing recovery at Rs.
3,36,300/- and censure entry. Thereafter,
petitioner retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2021, from the
post of Senior Medical Officer (Level-II).

4. It is informed that petitioner has
received pension and post retiral dues.

5. In this backdrop, learned counsel
for the petitioner has made two fold
submissions:(i) that the procedure as
mandated under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999, in
particular, Rule 7 (vii), the enquiry officer
has not fixed any date, time or place after
receiving the reply of the petitioner; (ii) the
department
did
not
produce
any
documentary or oral evidence before the
enquiry officer to prove/establish the
charges; (iii) the enquiry officer submitted
the enquiry report on the reply submitted
by the petitioner and the documents that
were supplied to the petitioner for raising
his defence. It is not the case of the Staterespondent that the department relied upon
the very same documents to prove the
charge.

6. On specific query, learned counsel
for the State-respondent admits that neither
presenting officer was appointed, nor, any
document noted in the enquiry report or
oral evidence was led to prove the charges
against the petitioner.

7. The second leg of the argument of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
at
this
stage
since
petitioner
has
superannuated, it is not open for the Staterespondent to de-novo initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner in view
of the embargo mandated under Article
351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. It
is urged that the charges pertain to the year
2011 which is beyond four years, further,
approval is to be sought from the Hon'ble
Governor
to
initiate
disciplinary
proceedings since petitioner has retired.

8. In rebuttal, learned Standing
Counsel does not dispute on perusal of the
enquiry report that the procedure as
contemplated under Rule 7 (vii) of the
Rules, 1999, has not been followed. The
enquiry officer submitted the report after
calling upon the petitioner for personal
hearing. The hearing was recorded in a
question-answer format on the documents
that were supplied to the petitioner to raise
his defence. Enquiry report does not reflect
or refer to any such documents that was
presented by the department before the
enquiry officer to press the charges against
the petitioner. The charge sheet does not
flag the documents or witnesses in support
of the charges.

9. In other words, petitioner came to be
punished on the documents that were supplied
to the petitioner on his asking for raising
defence. In the alternative, it is submitted that
petitioner was called upon to prove his
innocence against the charges. The department
did not produce any evidence, documentary or
oral to prove the charge, nor any date, time or
place was fixed by the enquiry officer to
supply the list of documents/witnesses upon
which the department would rely upon to
prove the charges.
5 All. Dr. Kamal Kumar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1053

10. The Rules, 1999, prescribe
detailed procedure to be followed in
matters
of
enforcing
discipline
and
imposing
penalties/punishments
against
government servants in U.P., in cases of
proven misconduct. Rule 3 gives a list of
minor and major penalties that may be
imposed by the appointing authority on the
government servants.

11. Rule 7 prescribes in detail, the
procedure and the manner in which an
enquiry shall be conducted before imposing
any major penalty on a government servant.
Rule 7 sub rule (2) provides 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. This charge sheet has
to
be
approved
by
the
disciplinary
authority. Rule 7 sub rule (3) further
provides that the charge(s) framed shall be
so precise and clear as to give sufficient
indication to the charged government
servant of the facts and circumstances
against him. It is mandatory that the
proposed documentary evidence and the
name of witnesses proposed to prove the
charges together with any oral evidence(s)
that may be recorded be mentioned in the
charge sheet.

12. Thereafter under Rule 7 sub rule
(4) the government servant is given an
opportunity to put in a written statement, of
his defence, within a specified period of
time which shall not be less than 15 days.
The government servant is also required to
indicate whether he desires to cross
examine any witnesses mentioned in charge
sheet.

13. Sub rule (v) of Rule 7 mandates
that the copies of the documentary
evidence mentioned in the charge sheet has
to be served on the government servant
along with the charge sheet. The aforesaid
sub rule is as under:

"7(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 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 chargesheet, the charged Government servant
shall be permitted to inspect the same
before the Inquiry Officer."

14. A perusal of the aforesaid rule
would clearly show that the disciplinary
authority is duty bound to make available
all relevant documents which are sought to
be relied upon against the government
servant in proof of the charges. It is only
when the charge sheet together with
documents is supplied that the government
servant can be said to have had an effective
and reasonable opportunity to present his
written statement of defence.

15. The inquiry report is vitiated also
on the ground that the inquiry officer failed
to fix any date for the appearance of the
petitioner to inspect the documentary
evidence to press the charge. The list of
evidence-documentary or oral was not
prepared nor supplied to the petitioner.

16. An inquiry officer acting in a
quasi judicial proceedings is in the position
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of an independent adjudicator. He is not
supposed to be a representative of the
department/disciplinaryauthority/Governm
ent. 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
documents have been produced by the
department nor proved to conclude that the
charges have been proved against the
respondents.

17. When a department enquiry is
conducted against the Government servant it
cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The
enquiry
proceedings
also
cannot
be
conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry
officer has to be wholly unbiased.

18. In the oral enquiry, what evidence is
required to prove the charges is a fact which
may differ from case to case. If the
allegations in the charges are such which can
be proved by oral evidence, it is necessary for
the employer to bring oral evidence to prove
the charges but if the allegations in an
enquiry are such which can be proved from
the documents, it is not obligatory for the
employer to bring oral evidence. Moreover,
even in cases where the charges are based on
documents, employer may be required to
prove the documents in an event when the
genuineness or veracity of the documents has
been denied by the delinquent. In a case
where the genuineness or veracity of the
documents has not been denied by the
delinquent, the employer may not fail on the
ground that no witness has come forward to
prove the document. The disciplinary enquiry
is not governed by strict rules of evidence.
(Refer: Raj Babu Agnihotri v. Labour
Commissioner1)

19. In State of Haryana and another
versus Rattan Singh2, it was held in
paragraph 4 by the Apex Court :

"4. It is well-settled that in a
domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated
rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence
Act may not apply. All materials which are
logically probative for a prudent mind are
permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay
evidence provided it has reasonable nexus
and creditability. It is true that departmental
authorities and administrative Tribunals
must be careful in evaluating such material
and should not glibly swallow what is
strictly speaking not relevant under the
Indian Evidence Act.....The simple point is,
was there some evidence or was there no
evidence not in the sense of the technical
sides governing regular Court proceedings
but in a fair common sense way as men of
understanding and worldly wisdom will
accept."

20. The learned Standing Counsel
fairly submits that the respondents be
permitted to conclude the enquiry from the
stage of reply submitted by the petitioner
after following the mandate of Rule 7 of
Rules, 1999, as the petitioner is alleged to
have caused monetary loss to the State.

21. Insofar as Article 351-A is
concerned, it merely provides that in the
event disciplinary proceedings has to be
initiated against the retired employee,
sanction of the Governor is to be obtained.
The proviso to Article 351-A carves out an
exception that in the event the disciplinary
proceedings has not been initiated prior to
retirement of the government servant or he
was not under suspension in that event an
approval has to be obtained from the
Governor. Further, the enquiry would not
5 All. Dr. Kamal Kumar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1055
be conducted on allegation which is prior to
four years.

22. Regulations 351A of Civil Service
Regulations, for the purpose of the case is
extracted:-

"351A. The Governor reserves to
himself the right of withholding or
withdrawing a pension or any part of it,
whether permanently or for a specified
period and the right of ordering the
recovery from a pension of the whole or
part of any pecuniary loss caused to
Government, if the pensioner is found in
departmental or judicial proceedings to
have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to
have caused pecuniary loss to Government
by misconduct or negligence, during his
service, including service rendered on reemployment after retirement:

Provided that-

(a)
Such
departmental
proceedings, if not instituted while the
officer was on duty either before retirement
or during reemployment -

i) shall not be instituted save with
the sanction of the Governor.

ii) shall be in respect of an event
which took place not more than four years
before the institution of such proceedings;
and

(Provided further .......For the
purpose of this article -

(a)
departmental
proceedings
shall be deemed to have been instituted
when the charges framed against the
pensioner are issued to him or, if the officer
has been placed under suspension from an
earlier date, on such date; and

23. The substantive part of Regulation
351A
confers
the
power
upon
the
Government of withholding or withdrawing
a pension or any part of it, whether
permanently or for a specified period and
the right of ordering the recovery from a
pension of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the
pensioner is found in departmental or
judicial proceedings to have been guilty of
grave misconduct, or to have caused
pecuniary
loss
to
Government
by
misconduct or negligence, during his
service, including service rendered on reemployment after retirement. There is a
proviso appended to the Regulation which
circumscribes the power conferred by the
substantive part of the Regulation. Clause
(a) of the proviso with which we are
concerned here uses the expression - if not
instituted while the officer was on duty
either before retirement or during reemployment. Clause (a) of the proviso will,
therefore, get attracted only when the
departmental proceedings are instituted
against the officer after his retirement or
when he is not in re-employment. If the
departmental proceedings are instituted
before an officer has attained the age of
superannuation and before his retirement,
proviso (a) can have no application. In
order to remove any doubt regarding the
date of institution of enquiry or the judicial
proceedings an Explanation has been
appended after the proviso. According to
Explanation (a), departmental proceedings
shall be deemed to have been instituted (i)
when the charges framed against the officer
are issued to him, or (ii) if the officer has
been placed under suspension from an
earlier date, on such date. By incorporating
the explanation, the rule framing authority
has notionally fixed two dates as the date
on which the departmental proceedings
shall be deemed to have been instituted
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against an officer. A combined reading of
the proviso and the explanation would
show that there is no fetter or limitation of
any kind for instituting departmental
proceedings against an officer if he has not
attained the age of superannuation and has
not retired from service. If an officer is
either placed under suspension or charges
are issued to him prior to his attaining the
age of superannuation, the departmental
proceedings so instituted can validly
continue even after he has attained the age
of superannuation and has retired and the
limitations imposed by sub-clause (i) or
sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of proviso to
Regulation 351A will not apply.

24. The proceedings for recovery of
the amount from a Government servant can
be passed in the event he is held to be
guilty of grave misconduct or caused
pecuniary loss to Government by his
misconduct or negligence during his
service.
Some
procedural
safeguards,
however, have been laid down in terms of
proviso appended thereto, including the
requirement to obtain an order of sanction
of the Governor. Such order of sanction,
however, would not be necessary if the
departmental
proceedings
have
been
initiated while the delinquent was on duty.
Proviso appended to Regulation 351-A
merely controls the main proceedings. The
same would apply in the exigencies of the
situation envisaged therein, namely, when
the
proceedings
were
initiated
after
retirement and not prior thereto.

25. Learned Standing Counsel, in the
given facts, submits that in the instant case,
admittedly, the petitioner was placed under
suspension
and
the
disciplinary
proceedings was initiated against the
petitioner prior to his attaining the age of
superannuation.
Though
the
enquiry
concluded before the petitioner could
superannuate would not mean that a fresh
approval has to be obtained from the
Hon'ble Governor in terms of the proviso to
Article
351-A of
the Civil
Service
Regulations. The State-respondents are not
required to issue any fresh charge sheet,
rather, on the same charge sheet which
admittedly was issued before the retirement
of the petitioner disciplinary proceedings
would proceed from the stage of the defect
committed by the enquiry officer. In other
words, it is urged that Article 351-A in the
given facts would not be attracted. The
matter would be different in case the
enquiry proceedings is quashed.

26. It is a settled legal proposition
that, once the Court set asides an order of
punishment on the ground, that the enquiry
was not properly conducted, the Court
should not severely preclude the employer
from holding the inquiry in accordance
with law. It must remit the concerned case
to the disciplinary authority, to conduct the
enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated,
and to conclude the same in accordance
with law. However, resorting to such a
course depends upon the gravity of
delinquency involved. (Refer: Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc.etc. v. B.
Karunakar etc.etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074;
Hiran
Mayee
Bhattacharyya
v.
Secretary, S.M. School for Girls & Ors.,
(2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning
C. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & Anr., (2005) 8
SCC 264; and Union of India v. Y.S.
Sandhu, Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC 161).

27. Supreme Court in NOIDA
Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA &
Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2112, held that the
competence of an authority to hold an
enquiry against an employee who has
retired, depends upon the statutory rules
5 All. Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1057
which govern the terms and conditions of
his service, and while deciding the said
case, reliance was placed on various earlier
judgments of the Court, including, B.J.
Shelat v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR
1978 SC 1109; Ramesh Chandra Sharma
v. Punjab National Bank & Anr., (2007)
9 SCC 15; and UCO Bank & Anr. v.
Rajinder Lal Capoor, AIR 2008 SC
1831.

28. As noted in the preceding
paragraphs that the embargo of Article 351-A
of Civil Service Regulations would not come
on the way of the State to conclude the
proceedings from the stage of defect even
though the petitioner has retired. The
departmental proceedings commenced before
the retirement of the petitioner. The
impugned order is unsustainable due to the
procedural defect in concluding the enquiry
and not owing to an illegality that would
vitiate the departmental enquiry itself. The
charges against the petitioner pertain to
having caused pecuniary loss to the State
which can be pressed even after the
retirement of the petitioner. The recovery, on
the charges being proved, can be made from
the pension after approval of the Hon'ble
Governor.

29. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and upon perusal of
the material documents, in particular, the
enquiry report, with the assistance of learned
counsel for the parties, the impugned order
dated 13.04.2016, passed by the first
respondent, Principal Secretary, Department
of Medical and Health, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, cannot be sustained as the same
has been passed without following the
mandate of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999.

30. Accordingly, the order dated
13.04.2016, passed by the first respondent,
Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Medical and Health, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, is set aside and quashed.
Liberty is granted to the first respondent to
appoint an enquiry officer who shall
proceed from the stage of the reply
submitted
by
the
petitioner.
The
department shall appoint a presenting
officer who shall present the documents to
be relied upon in support of the charges
and, thereafter, disciplinary proceedings
shall
be
concluded,
expeditiously,
preferably, within six months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
order, provided the petitioner cooperates
and there is no other impediment.

31. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed in part.

32. No cost.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1057
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 6695 of 2016

Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Extraordinary Pension -
U.P. Police (Extra Ordinary Pension) (First
Amendment) Rules, 1975 - Rule 3 - In
case person dies because of accident at
the time of going or coming back after