# Dr. Ram Pujan Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 512
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-28
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2432 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-ram-pujan-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48552
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceeding -
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9(4), 10 - The
Disciplinary Authority has to consider the entire
material on record including the charges, facts
of the case, reply submitted by the petitioner to
the charge, evidence adduced dring inquiry and
then to record his independent and objective
opinion as to whether the charge against the
petitioner is proved ad why the reply of the
petitioner against the charge and his response
5 All. Dr. Ram Pujan Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
513
to the inquiry report is not accepted by the
Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, the
Disciplinary Committee did not apply mind to
the relevant aspects of the matter and did not
discuss about the charges and evidence
followed by his own opinion in respect of each
of the charges as to how it is proved against the
petitioner and why the reply of the petitioner in
this regard against the charge sheet as also
against the inquiry report is not acceptable.
(Para 3 & 4)
Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel supports the impugned order and
prays that the present appeals are liable to
be dismissed summarily. He submitted that
the appellants herein got the benefit of the
policy by furnishing wrong information
hence, the order was rightly recalled.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and perusing the record, the
undisputed fact that emerges is that the
appellant was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in primary institution. After the
issuance of Government Order dated
December 2, 2019, appellant submitted
application seeking her transfer, which was
approved. Subsequently on verification it
was revealed that incorrect information was
furnished by the appellant for transfer that
she belonged to the rural local area cadre
while sought her transfer to urban local
area cadre. The said inter-change of cadre
was not permissible, in the absence of any
formal order. Therefore, the appellant was
rightly directed to re-join at her original
place of posting.

8. The appellant has also failed to
bring on record any cogent reason or
material to show that her posting was in
urban local area cadre instead of rural local
area cadre.

9. Learned Senior Counsel, at this
juncture, has submitted that the appellant
was receiving House Rent Allowance of
urban area. Therefore, she should be treated
in
Urban
Local
Area
Cadre.
The
appointment letter issued to the appellant is
on
record,
which
shows
that
her
appointment was in rural local area cadre.
Merely, the residence of appellant for
payment of House Rent Allowance for
urban local area has no relevance for
determining the cadre of the appellant.

10. It is stated at bar that the
appellants have joined at their original
place of posting.

11. In view of the facts stated above
as well as in the absence of any material
available on record to show that the
appellants belong to urban local area cadre,
no case is made out for interference with
the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.

12. The appeals fail and are
accordingly dismissed.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A512
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 28.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Writ-A No. 2432 of 2022

Dr. Ram Pujan Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sharad Pathak, Piyush Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceeding -
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9(4), 10 - The
Disciplinary Authority has to consider the entire
material on record including the charges, facts
of the case, reply submitted by the petitioner to
the charge, evidence adduced dring inquiry and
then to record his independent and objective
opinion as to whether the charge against the
petitioner is proved ad why the reply of the
petitioner against the charge and his response
5 All. Dr. Ram Pujan Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
513
to the inquiry report is not accepted by the
Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, the
Disciplinary Committee did not apply mind to
the relevant aspects of the matter and did not
discuss about the charges and evidence
followed by his own opinion in respect of each
of the charges as to how it is proved against the
petitioner and why the reply of the petitioner in
this regard against the charge sheet as also
against the inquiry report is not acceptable.
(Para 3 & 4)
Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2014 (4)
ALJ 440
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned
counsel for petitioner and Shri Vivek Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for State.

2. Ordinarily in matters of minor punishment
the High Court is loathe to interfere and the
petitioner is relegated to the alternative
remedy before the U.P. Public Services
Tribunal, however, the contention of Shri
Sharak Pathak, learned counsel for the
petitioner in this case is that there is apparent
error on the face of the record as while
passing the impugned order the Special
Secretary to the Government who has passed
the order has merely quoted the Charge, the
finding of the Inquiry Officer in respect
thereto and response of the petitioner to the
show cause notice and the inquiry report.
This has been done from internal Page 1 to
internal page 6, up to this stage there is
absolutely no discussion of the findings by
the Inquiry Officer, the reply submitted by the
petitioner to the charge sheet, the evidence
which may have been collected in the inquiry,
independently
and
objectively
by
the
Disciplinary Authority to arrive at any
finding. It is only in Para 3 that the Special
Secretary has expressed his opinion. Para 3
reads as under:-

"3- Jh jke iwtu JhokLro] RkRdkyhu vf/k'kklh
vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] dklxat lECk) uxj
iapk;r] vekaiqj&dklxat lEizfr vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh]
uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] Vk.Mk vEcsMdjuxj ds fo#)
vkjksi la[;k&1 vkaf'kd #i ls rFkk vkjksi la[;k&2
iw.kZ#i ls fl) ik;k x;kA Jh;qr JhokLro }kjk vius
inh; nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa ykijokgh cjrus ,oa
fufonk izdk'ku esa vfu;ferrk;sa cjrus ds fy, 'kklu
}kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr mUgsa ifjfuUnk iznku djrs
gq, 02 osru o`f) vLFkk;h #i ls 03 o"kkZsa ds fy,
jksds tkus dh 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir fd;s tkus dk vufUre
fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA 'kklu ds i= la[;k&
869@ukS&4&21&16bZvks@2019] fnukad 20-09-2021
}kjk izpfyr foHkkxh; tkWp esa izkIr tkWp vk[;k rFkk
tkWp vk[;k ds fo#) muds vH;kosnu ds
ijh{k.kksijkUr vufUre n.M ds fofu'p; ij ek0 yksd
lsok vk;ksx] m0iz0 iz;kxjkt dh lgefr miyC/k
djkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA mi lfpo] ek0 yksd
lsok
vk;ksx
m0iz0
iz;kxjkt
ds
i=
la[;k&567@21@12&,0Mh0lh0@,l&10@2021&22]
fnukad 17-11-2021 }kjk mDr ij nh x;h lgefr ds
n`f"Vxr Jh jke iwtu JhokLro] rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh
vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] dklxat lEc) uxj
iapk;r vekaiqj&dklxat lEizfr vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh]
uxj ikfydk ifj"kn Vk.Mk vEcsMdjuxj dks
fuEufyf[kr 'kkfLr iznku djrs gq, muds fo#)
izpfyr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ,rn~}kjk lekIr dh
tkrh gS%&

ÞJh jke iwtu JhokLro] rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh
vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] dklxat vfrfjDr
izHkkj uxj iapk;r] vekaiqj dklxat lEizfr vf/k'kklh
vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] Vk.Mk vEcsMdjuxj
ds fo#) vkaf'kd #i ls fl) vkjksi la[;k&1 rFkk
iw.kZr;k fl) vkjksi la[;k&2 gsrq mUgsa ifjfufUnr
djrs gq, 02 osru o`f) vLFkk;h #i ls 03 o"kksZa ds
fy, jksdh tkrh gSAß

bl vkns'k dh ,d izfr Jh jke iwtu JhokLro
dh o"kZ 2021&22 dh okf"kZd xksiuh; izfof"V ds lkFk
j[kh tk;sxhA

lat; dqekj flag ;kno

fo'ks"k lfpoA "

3. The submission is that proceedings were
initiated for imposing a major punishment
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by issuance of charge sheet. The petitioner
had submitted reply to the charge sheet.
Thereafter, inquiry was conducted. The
Inquiry Officer submitted his findings. The
Disciplinary Authority obviously did not
differ from the report of the Inquiry Officer,
therefore, he served a show cause notice
upon the petitioner enclosing therewith the
inquiry report asking him to respond
whereupon the petitioner has submitted his
response.
Now,
at
this
stage
the
Disciplinary Authority was required to
independently and objectively consider the
entire material on record including the
charges, facts of the case, reply submitted
by the petitioner to the charge, evidence
adduced during inquiry and then to record
his independent and objective opinion as to
whether the charge against the petitioner is
proved and why the reply of the petitioner
against the charge and his response to
inquiry report is not acceptable to the
Disciplinary Authority. A finding of guilt in
respect of each charge should have been
recorded with such discussion. It can not be
a mechanical exercise because the Inquiry
Officer has found the charge to be proved,
especially as, even thereafter, the petitioner
has responded to the show cause notice as
against the inquiry report.

4. On a bare perusal of Para 3 of the
impugned order the Court finds that there
is no due and proper application of mind
by the Disciplinary Authority to the
relevant aspects of the matter and no
discussion of the charges and evidence
followed by his own opinion in respect of
each of the charge as to how it is proved
against the petitioner and why the reply of
the petitioner in this regard against the
charge sheet as also against the inquiry
report is not acceptable. Para 3 merely
says that charge no. 1 and 2 have been
found to be proved partially and totally
respectively and the State Government has
decided to impose a punishment of
censure entry and withholding of two
annual increments. Thereafter, it says that
after examining the representation of the
petitioner against the show cause notice a
tentative punishment was proposed to the
Public Service Commission seeking its
approval which was granted on 17.11.2021
and thereafter in Para 3 straightway the
punishment of censure and withholding of
two annual increments for years have been
passed. The order is not at all in keeping
with the requirements of principle of
natural justice. There is no due and proper
application
of
mind
as
referred
hereinabove. There are no reasons given
by the Disciplinary Authority discussing
the charges and evidence etc.

5. Even if as Shri Vivek Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
says that the punishment imposed was a
minor one the fact remains that the
proceedings were initiated for imposing a
major punishment, but, this apart, even
while imposing a minor punishment the
order of the Disciplinary Authority has to
disclose some application of mind which is
absent in this case. It is passing of such
orders which compel the Courts to interfere
in such matters. Merely quoting the charge,
findings of the Inquiry Officer, extract of
the reply of the petitioner to the show cause
notice does not mean due and proper
application of mind nor is it in keeping
with the principle of natural justice.

6. At this stage Shri Vivek Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
relied upon Rule 9(4) of the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Rules, 1999')which reads as
under:-
5 All. Dr. Ram Pujan Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
515

"9.(4) If the disciplinary authority
having regard to its findings on all or any
of charges is of the opinion that any penalty
specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on
the charged Government servant, he shall
give a copy of the inquiry report and his
findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the
charged Government servant and require
him to submit his representation if he so
desires, within a reasonable specified time.
The disciplinary authority shall, having
regard to all the relevant records relating to
the inquiry and representation of the
charged Government servant, if any, and
subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these
rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one
or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of
these rules and communicate the same to
the charged Government servant."

7. Even when tested on the anvil of the
said Rule the impugned order can not be
sustained. By the said rule also, after the
charged government servant submits his
response to the show cause notice, the
Disciplinary Authority is mandated to
consider all relevant records relating to the
inquiry and representation of the charged
government servant, if any, and subject to the
provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, pass a
reasoned order imposing one or more
penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of the Rules,
1999 and communicate it to the charged
government servant. As already stated, there
is no 'consideration' by the Disciplinary
Authority of all the relevant records relating
to the inquiry and representation of the
charged government servant. Mere reference
or quoting of the reply does not amount to its
consideration. The order for the reasons
already mentioned can not be stated to be
reasoned order also.

8. The Court may in this regard refer
to the decision in the case of Kaptan Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2014
(4) ALJ 440 wherein the law as to how an
inquiry is to be conducted and what is the
role of the Disciplinary Authority has been
discussed,
albeit
that
was
a
matter
pertaining to major punishment but so far
as application of mind by the Disciplinary
Authority is concerned, the same is
somewhat similar whether the punishment
to be imposed is major or minor and any
order without due and proper application of
mind even if imposing minor punishing is
against the principle of natural justice as
also against the letter and spirit of the
Rules, 1999.

9. Even in respect to minor
punishment Rule 10 of the Rules, 1999
reads as under:-

"10. Procedure for imposing minor
penalties. - (1) Where the disciplinary
authority is satisfied that good and
sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a
course, it may, subject to the provisions of
sub-rule (2) impose one or more of the
minor penalties mentioned in Rule 3.

(2) The Government servant shall be
informed
of
the
substance
of
the
imputations against him and called upon to
submit his explanation within a reasonable
time. The disciplinary authority shall after
considering the said explanation, if any,
and the relevant records, pass such orders
as he considers proper and where a
penalty is imposed, reason thereof shall be
given. The order shall be communicated to
the concerned Government servant."

10. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 very
categorically provides that where the
disciplinary authority is satisfied that
good and sufficient reasons exist for
adopting such a course, it may, subject to
the provisions of sub-rule (2) impose one or
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
more of the minor penalties mentioned in
Rule 3.

11.

The
satisfaction
of
the
Disciplinary Authority has to be based on
good
and
sufficient
reasons
which
obviously implies proper application of
mind, the entire material on record
including the inquiry report where there is
an inquiry report or otherwise the show
cause notice. Merely because at the stage of
Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999 the Disciplinary
Authority has not differred with the inquiry
report, does not mean that, ultimately, after
considering
the
response
of
the
chargesheeted government servant to the
inquiry report, he does not have to apply
his mind and has necessarily to accept the
inquiry report and the findings contained
therein. This is not the scheme of the Rules,
1999 nor its intent. The requirement of
Rules as aforesaid and principal of natural
justice are not meant to be an empty
formality.

12. Further more, Sub-rule (2) of Rule
10 of the Rules, 1999 also says that after
considering the said explanation of the
government servant, if any, and the
relevant records, pass such orders as he
considers proper and where a penalty is
imposed, reason thereof shall be given.
None of these parameters and requirements
are satisfied in the impugned order. The
Court does not go into the question as to
how the Special Secretary has passed the
impugned order on behalf of the State
Government as ordinarily it is the Principal
Secretary or the Additional Chief Secretary
who passes such an order which may be
communicated by the Special Secretary,
but, it does not take this into account for
quashing the impugned order and it does so
for
other
reasons
already
mentioned
hereinabove.

13. The State Government, however,
shall now proceed to pass a fresh order in
the light of what has been stated
hereinabove considering the response of the
petitioner to the inquiry report etc. and
other material on record.

14. The writ petition is allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
----------
(2022)05ILR A516
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2022

BEFORE

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

Writ-A No. 2592 of 2022

Sonu Bharti ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pravin Kumar Tiwari, Sri Dharmendra Kumar
Chaubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Practice & Procedure -
Simultaneous Proceedings - U.P. Police
Regulation, 1861: Regulation 492 & 493 -
It is a settled principle of law that
departmental proceedings and criminal
proceedings can proceed simultaneously
as the standard of proof in both the cases
are different but when if the departmental
proceedings and criminal case are based
on similar set of facts and charges in
criminal
case
against
a
delinquent
employee
is
of
grave
nature
which
involves complicated question of fact and
law, it would be desirable to stay the
departmental
proceedings
till
the
conclusion of criminal case. (Para 10)
Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-10)