# Eklavya Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 956
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-07
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 26819 of 2019
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/eklavya-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49757
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Departmental Inquiry -
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1999: Rule 7 - In this St.
not even a single departmental inquiry for
major punishment is being conducted in
accordance with law. All the delinquent
employees are discharged repeatedly as
proper procedure is not followed. The
orders of the Supreme Court, of this Court as
well as the Government Orders issued by the
Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. appear to
be falling on deaf ears. (Para 166)

In the leading Writ Petition No. 26819 of 2019,
the petitioner has approached this Court
challenging the impugned punishment order
dated
02.08.2019
passed
by
the
St.
Government. Earlier also, the petitioner was
punished by order dated 04.04.2013. The said
order dated 04.04.2013 was set aside by this
Court in Writ Petition No. 30422 (S/B) of 2016.
2 All. Eklavya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
957
The writ petition was allowed on the ground
that the inquiry was conducted in violation of
Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1999. This Court gave a
categorical finding that the earlier inquiry was
concluded merely after taking reply of the
petitioner, without holding any oral inquiry as
per Rule 7 of Rules, 1999. The respondents
again proceeded to hold an inquiry and passed
the impugned order dated 02.08.2019. (Para 8)

A perusal of the inquiry report shows that on
the charge-sheet, only reply of the delinquent
officer/petitioner is considered and thereafter
the findings on the same are given. There is
no reference to any oral evidence or
documentary evidence and the manner in
which the documentary evidence was
proved, reflected in the inquiry report. On
the basis of the said report final order of
punishment dated 02.08.2019 is passed. The
inquiry report as well as the punishment
order are in violation of Rule 7 of Rules of

## Text

_Characters 0–39,948 of 83,298. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39948 for what follows._

956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. In light of the aforesaid and in
view of the fact that from the perusal of the
impugned order, the gratuity which has
been withheld is only on account of the
pendency of the criminal case and it does
not indicate that there is any serious
deliberation regarding the fact as to
whether the petitioner was involved in a
serious crime and the aspects which have
been noted above especially in light of the
Full Bench Decision of Shiv Gopal
(supra), Devendra Kumar Sharma (supra)
and Uday Narayan Ojha (supra) which
have been reproduced hereinabove. The
impugned order is apparently non-speaking
and does not reflect any application of
judicial mind. It was incumbent upon the
Authorities to pass appropriate orders only
taking into consideration the law laid down
by this Court in the case of Shiv Gopal
(supra).

21. Apparently, the Authorities have
not applied their judicial mind nor have
considered the case of the petitioner in
light of the dictum of the full bench
decision, accordingly, in the aforesaid
circumstances, the impugned order in so
far as it relates to withholding the
gratuity
of
the
petitioner
is
not
sustainable.

22. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the matter is remitted to the Authority
concerned and the petitioner is permitted
to file a detailed representation alongwith
a copy of this judgment within two weeks
raising the issue before the Authority
concerned who shall consider the said
representation and pass a reasoned and
speaking order taking note of the decision
of this Court in the case of Shiv Gopal
(supra) as well as the observations made
in this judgment. The decision shall be
taken by the Authorities concerned within
a period of four weeks and it shall be
communicated to the petitioner.

23. The writ petition is allowed in
the aforesaid terms. In the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as
to costs.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 956
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-A No. 26819 of 2019
along with other connected cases

Eklavya Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anwar Ashfaq, Rina Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Departmental Inquiry -
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1999: Rule 7 - In this St.
not even a single departmental inquiry for
major punishment is being conducted in
accordance with law. All the delinquent
employees are discharged repeatedly as
proper procedure is not followed. The
orders of the Supreme Court, of this Court as
well as the Government Orders issued by the
Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. appear to
be falling on deaf ears. (Para 166)

In the leading Writ Petition No. 26819 of 2019,
the petitioner has approached this Court
challenging the impugned punishment order
dated
02.08.2019
passed
by
the
St.
Government. Earlier also, the petitioner was
punished by order dated 04.04.2013. The said
order dated 04.04.2013 was set aside by this
Court in Writ Petition No. 30422 (S/B) of 2016.
2 All. Eklavya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
957
The writ petition was allowed on the ground
that the inquiry was conducted in violation of
Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1999. This Court gave a
categorical finding that the earlier inquiry was
concluded merely after taking reply of the
petitioner, without holding any oral inquiry as
per Rule 7 of Rules, 1999. The respondents
again proceeded to hold an inquiry and passed
the impugned order dated 02.08.2019. (Para 8)

A perusal of the inquiry report shows that on
the charge-sheet, only reply of the delinquent
officer/petitioner is considered and thereafter
the findings on the same are given. There is
no reference to any oral evidence or
documentary evidence and the manner in
which the documentary evidence was
proved, reflected in the inquiry report. On
the basis of the said report final order of
punishment dated 02.08.2019 is passed. The
inquiry report as well as the punishment
order are in violation of Rule 7 of Rules of
1999. (Para 9, 10, 11)

Learned Chief Standing Counsel-III makes a
St.ment before this Court, on instructions, that
the
St.
shall
ensure
that
appropriate
departmental proceedings are initiated against
the erring Inquiry Officers as well as the
disciplinary authorities. He assures the Court
that these proceedings shall also be brought to
its logical conclusion, within a period of two
months in accordance with law. (Para 168)

All the writ petitions are allowed and
finally disposed of except Writ-A No. 8408 of
2022, which is not being disposed of finally to
ensure compliance. Respondents may proceed
to hold a fresh enquiry by serving a fresh
charge sheet along with documentary and oral
evidence and following the proper procedure of
law. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Prakash Chandra Agrawal Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., Writ-A No. 2555 of 2022, decided on
07.05.2022 (Para 3)

2. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Vijaya Nand Tiwari,
Special Leave to Appeal No. 10331 of 2022
(Para 3)
3. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Prakash Chandra
Agrawal, Special Appeal Defective No. 97 of
2022, Order passed on 22.07.2022 (Para 4)

4. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Prakash Chandra
Agrawal, Special Appeal No. 351 of 2022,
decided on 05.09.2022 (Para 5)

Present
petitions
challenge
orders
imposing major punishment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur
and Shri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned
senior advocates, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra,
Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, Shri Raj
Kumar Upadhyaya, Shri Pt. S. Chandra,
Shri Apoorva Tewari and other counsels for
the petitioners. Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi,
learned Additional Advocate General, Sri
Ravi
Singh
Sisodiya,
learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel-III,
Shri
Ratnesh
Chandra and learned counsel for the
respective department appeared for the
respondents.

2. The departmental inquiries with
regard to the major punishment in the State
of U.P. are in utter chaos since long. Day in
and out, punishment orders are challenged
before this Court wherein Rule 7 of U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules of 1999'), is violated. In fact, entire
roster of a Judge can pass without a single
case of major punishment being placed
before him in which Rule 7 of Rules of
1999 is complied with. Rule 7 (iii) and (vii)
of Rules of 1999 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 :
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

..

(iii) The charge framed shall be so
precise and clear as to give sufficient
indication to the charged Government

5

Servant of the facts and circumstances
against him. The proposed documentary
evidence and the name of the witnesses
proposed to prove the same alongwith oral
evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the
charge-sheet.

...
(vii) Where the charged Government
Servant denies the charge, 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
evidence, 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."

3. The seriousness of the situation
resulted in repeated orders passed by the
Supreme Court, by this Court as well as
Government
Orders
issued.
Relevant
amongst these read as follows:-

This Court in the case of Prakash
Chandra Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and
another
(Writ-A
No.2555
of
2022,
decided on 7.5.2022, passed the following
order:

"1. Present writ petition is filed by the
petitioner challenging his punishment order
dated 11.04.2022 passed by Additional
Chief
Secretary/Principal
Secretary,
Secretariat
Administration
Department,
Lucknow (respondent no.2).

2. By the impugned order, petitioner is
given a punishment of censure entry and
reversion to the post of Section Officer from
the post of Under-Secretary.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel
for petitioner submits that the inquiry was
conducted
by
the
Special
Secretary,
Medical Education Services, U.P., who
submitted her report on 25.08.2021. He
submits that in the present case, the inquiry
officer was never provided the documents
to which she had relied upon in the inquiry.
The said documents were summoned by the
inquiry officer during the conduct of the
inquiry and were also perused by her.
However,
neither
copy
of
the
said
documents were provided to the petitioner
nor the same were permitted to be perused
by the petitioner. Learned counsel for
petitioner further submits that a bare
perusal of the report shows that the inquiry
was conducted in violation of Rule-7 of the
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Rules of 1999'), as no date, time and
place was fixed in the inquiry.

4. I have perused the inquiry report as
well as the impugned punishment order. A
bare perusal of the same shows that the
inquiry officer has, in fact, not merely
failed to follow the procedure provided by
Rule-7 of Rules of 1999 but has also placed
burden upon the delinquent employee to
prove that he is not guilty. In the first line
of discussion, the inquiry officer states,
that, delinquent employee through his reply
to the charge-sheet/statements could not
submit any evidence which would prove
that the delinquent employee is wrongly
charged.

5. In the present case, the Additional
Chief Secretary was summoned along with
the record. Today he is present in Court
along with the record and with his
assistance as well as assistance of the
2 All. Eklavya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
959
counsels for parties, record is perused.
Learned Standing Counsel also could not
show from the record of the case that the
procedure as prescribed under Rule-7 of
Rules of 1999 is followed in conducting the
inquiry and any date, time and place was
fixed for evidence or evidence relied
upon/summoned was provided to the
petitioner.

6. Though the matter is simple as it is
to be remanded back, but, in large number
of cases filed before this Court, it is found
that the inquiry with regard to major
penalty is conducted in violation of Rule-7
of Rules of 1999. The present case is a
glaring example of the same. Inquiry
officer is a Special Secretary and the
punishing
authority
is
a
Principal
Secretary. Still a glaring error is committed
in conduct of the inquiry by the inquiry
officer and in failure to check the same by
the punishing authority before punishment
order was issued. It is not merely the duty
of the inquiry officer to comply with the
Rule-7 but also the duty of the punishing
authority,
while
passing
order
of
punishment, to ensure that the inquiry is
conducted as per the procedure prescribed.

7. Such mistakes in large numbers are
occurring for quite some time now in the
State. The State Government as far back as
on
22.04.2015
issued
a
detailed
government order explaining at length the
manner in which inquiry with regard to
minor punishment or major punishment
should be conducted. The government
order explains at length what is already
prescribed in Rule-7. When the inquiries
were still not being conducted in proper
manner, again under order of this Court
dated
13.01.2021
passed
in
Writ-A
No.12110 of 2020; 'State of U.P. & Others
Vs. Vijay Anand Tiwari', a Government
Order dated 10.02.2021 was issued by the
State Government for compliance of Rule7. Despite two aforesaid government
orders, the inquiries are still not conducted
in a proper manner. It is sad to note that
the both the aforesaid government orders
are also not being complied with by the
officials. It is also noted that in large
number of cases, after remand when the
inquiry
is
re-conducted,
the
same
procedural error is again made and again
the inquiry report is submitted without
following the due procedure as per Rule-7.
This is also putting burden of unnecessary
litigation upon this Court. It is the duty of
the inquiry officer as well as the punishing
authority to ensure compliance of Rule-7.

8. Since these incidences are abundant
in number, therefore, this Court finds it
necessary now to ensure that every inquiry
officer, who at present is conducting an
inquiry or appointed to conduct any inquiry
in future, is provided proper training with
regard to the manner and procedure for
conducting the inquiry. Similarly the
disciplinary authorities are also required to
go through a training with regard to the
manner in which the inquiries are to be
conducted and, thereafter, punishment
orders are to be passed. It goes without
saying that the power exercised by the
inquiry officers are quasi judicial in nature
and for the same a judicially trained mind
is required. The State Government is
already having a Judicial Training and
Research
Institute
(J.T.R.I.)
which
trains/educates the officers of the State
Government
on
the
legal
compliances/procedures.

9.
Therefore,
Director,
J.T.R.I.,
Lucknow is directed to forthwith prepare an
appropriate program for training of the
inquiry officers as well as for training of
the disciplinary authorities so that such
mistakes are not repeated. The J.T.R.I shall
also issue an appropriate identifiable
certificate to every officer after he/she
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
completes the training session. The relevant
details
of
the
said
training
session/certificates shall be referred by the
officer concerned in every inquiry report
submitted by him/her or punishment order
passed. All the officers who are conducting
any inquiry at present in the State shall
attend the training without any delay and
such inquiry officers shall conclude their
inquiries only after their training is
completed.
Similarly
the
punishing
authority shall also go through the required
training before passing any punishment
order
and
also
refer
to
their
session/certificate. It is further directed that
no inquiry officer in future shall be
appointed for departmental inquiry who
has not received the training from the
J.T.R.I. The State government shall bear the
cost of the aforesaid training at J.T.R.I. at
its own cost.

10. Senior Registrar of this Court
shall forthwith send a copy of this order to
the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. as
well as Director, J.T.R.I., Lucknow for its
compliance.

11. Since, in the present case,
admittedly, there is violation of Rule-7 as
the documents relied upon by the inquiry
officer
were
never
provided
to
the
petitioner nor the inquiry is conducted
following the procedure prescribed under
Rule-7, i.e., by summoning the witnesses of
the department, giving chance of cross
examination, providing opportunity to the
delinquent employee/petitioner to call his
witnesses, therefore, impugned order dated
11.04.2022 cannot stand and is set aside.

12. The matter is remanded back to
respondent no.2 for conducting fresh
inquiry after following proper procedure as
prescribed under Rule-7.

13. With the aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed."

Supreme Court in the case of State
of U.P. and others vs. Vijaya Nand
Tiwari:
Special
Leave
to
Appeal
No.10331 of 2022, has passed following
comments on 13.7.2022 with regard to
working of the State Government:

"As the inquiry was found to be in
breach of Rule 7 (vii) of the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal), Rules, 1999 (for short of 1999"),
as such the learned Tribunal rightly set
aside the order of punishment. In fact, the
learned Tribunal allowed the back wages to
the extent of 50% only. The same is rightly
confirmed by the High Court. Therefore,
there is no merit in the Special Leave
Petition and the same deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

At this stage, it is required to be noted
that while passing the impugned order, the
High Court has shown its displeasure and
observed and issued directions to the Chief
Secretary, State of U.P. to look into the
matter
and
appropriately
direct
the
Secretaries of concerned departments to
ensure that inquiry is conducted after
observing Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 in
strict terms and more specially to lead oral
evidence to prove the charges. The High
Court has passed the following order -

"Before parting with the judgment, it is
necessary to indicate that time and again
Tribunal is causing interference in the
order of punishment finding violation of
Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999.

Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999
provides for oral evidence and invariably
not followed in the enquiry despite catena
of judgments of this Court causing
interference the order of punishment. The
violation of the Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of
1999 results not only interference of order
of punishment but financial burden on the
Government in shape of back wages.
2 All. Eklavya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
961

The Chief Secretary, State of U.P. is
directed to look into the matter and
appropriately direct the Secretaries of
concerned departments to ensure that
enquiry is conducted after observing Rule 7
of the Rules of 1999 in strict terms and
more specially to lead oral evidence to
prove the charges.

Necessary direction in compliance of
this order would be issued by office of
Chief Secretary, State of U.P. with an
information to this Court in reference to the
present order.

The registry is directed to send the
copy of this order to Chief Secretary, State
of U.P. for compliance within a period of
one month from the date of its receipt."

Nothing is on the record to show any
further steps taken by the Chief Secretary,
State of U.P. in furtherance of the aforesaid
directions issued by the High Court. Only
for that purpose, the Registry is directed to
notify the matter before this Bench on
18.07.2022 so as to enable the learned
counsel for the petitioners. to place on
record what steps are taken by the Chief
Secretary, State of U.P. in compliance with
the directions issued by this Court, as
above.

Pending
applications
shall
stand
disposed of."

4. Further, the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case of Vijaya Nand Tiwari
(supra) passed the following order on
18.7.2022.

"Pursuant to our earlier Order dated
13.07.2022, an Affidavit is filed on behalf of
the State of U.P. The affidavit is filed by one
Chintan, posted as Prabhagiya Nirdeshak,
Van Vibagh, Mau, U.P. which ought to have
been filed either by the Chief Secretary or
from the office of the Chief Secretary. In the
affidavit, it is pointed out that, pursuant to the
impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court, the Chief Secretary has issued
the Circular dated 10.02.2021, directing that
in all the departmental enquiry proceedings
in the State, Rule 7(vii) of the U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999 shall have to be followed.

When a pointed question was asked to
the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State that whether the Circular
dated 10.02.2021 has been scrupulously
thereafter followed or not. in the subsequent
departmental enquires, he has stated that he
has no further instructions in the matter and
he cannot make any statement on that. Mere
issuance of a Circular by the Chief Secretary
to follow the rules is not sufficient. When the
Chief Secretary has issued the Circular, it is
his duty to see that his own Circular is
followed.

Therefore, we direct the Chief Secretary
to see that his own Circular dated
10.02.2021 to follow Rule 7 (vii) of the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 shall be followed by all
concerned Officers in the departmental
enquiries so that the order of punishment on
conclusion of the departmental enquiry is
not set aside on the technical ground of not
following the procedure as required under
Rule 7 (vii) of the Rules, 1999. The Chief
Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh is directed
to act accordingly. He must also ensure that
if his own Circular is not followed, in that
case, a further departmental enquiry be
initiated against the erring officers, which
may be including the insubordination and
not following the Circular issued by the
Chief Secretary.

With this, we close the present
proceedings."

The
Government
Order
dated
10.8.2022
issued
by
the
State
Government reads as under:
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

loksZPPk izkFkfedrk

la[;k&10@2022@738fjV@dk&1&2022@131⁄491⁄2
1998

isz"kd]

nqxkZ 'kadj feJ]

eq[; lfpo

mRRkj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

leLr vij eq[; lfpo@izeq[k lfpo@lfpo]

mRRkj izns'k 'kkluA

dkfeZd vuqHkkx&1 y[kuÅ% fnukad 10 vxLr]
2022

fo"k;& foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ksa (Departmental
enquiries) esa lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk mRRkj izns'k
ljdkjh lsod 1⁄4vuq'kklu ,oa vihy1⁄2 fu;ekoyh] 1999
ds fu;e&7 (vii) dk vuqikyu u fd;s tkus ds
laca/k esaA

egksn;]

ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds le{k nk;j
,l0,y0ih0 1⁄4flfoy1⁄2 la[;k&10331@2022 mRRkj
izns'k jkT; o vU; cuke fot;kuUn frokjh esa ek0
mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 13-072022 lifBr vkns'k fnukad 18-07-2022 ds eq[;
fdz;kRed va'k fuEuor~ gS&

"...... Mere issuance of a circular by the
Chief Secretary to follow the rules is not
sufficient. When the Chief Secretary has
issued the circular, it is his duty to see that his
own Circular is followed.

Therefore, we direct the Chief Secretary
to see that his own circular dated 10.02.2021
to follow rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
shall be followed by all concerned officers in
the departmental enquiries so that the order
of
punishment
on
conclusion
of
the
departmental enquiry is not set aside on the
technical ground of not following the
procedure as required under Rule 7 (vii) of
the Rules, 1999. The Chief Secretary, State of
Uttar Pradesh is directed to act accordingly.
He must also ensure that if his own Circular
is not followed, in that case, a further
departmental enquiry be initiated against the
erring officers, which may be including the
insubordination and not following the
circular issued by the Chief Secretary.

With this, we close the present
proceedings."

2- ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds mi;qZDr vkns'kksa ds
leknj
esa
vkidk
/;ku
'kklukns'k
la[;k&01@2021@131⁄491⁄21998&20fjV@dk&1&2021
fnukad&10-02-2021 dh vksj vkd`"V djrs gq, eq>s
vkils ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd izR;sd foHkkxh;
tkap ds izdj.k esa m0iz0 ljdkjh lsod 1⁄4vuq'kklu ,oa
vihy1⁄2 fu;ekoyh] 1999 ds fu;e&7 (vii) dk
vfuok;Z :i ls vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djk;k tk;] ;fn
mDr dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr ugha fd;k tkrk gSa rks
nks"kh (erring) vf/kdkfj;ks ds fo:n~/k foHkkxh;
tkap lafLFkr djus dh dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tk;sA

The
State
Government
isued
Government Order dated 16.8.2022, which
reads as under:

"la[;k&11@2022@lSrkfyl&dk&1@2022@13
(3)@2022

izs"kd]

nqxkZ 'kadj feJ]

eq[; lfpo]

mRRkj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

leLr vij eq[; lfpo@izeq[k lfpo@lfpo]

mRRkj izns'k 'kkluA

dkfeZd vuqHkkx&1 y[kuÅ % fnukad 16 vxLr]
2022

fo"k;% mRRkj izns'k ljdkjh lsod ds vUrxZr
foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ksa dk fu;ekuqlkj fuLrkj.k ds
laca/k esa tk¡p vf/kdkfj;ksa dks izf'k{k.k fn, tkus ds
laca/k esaA

d`i;k fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&2555@2022 fjV&,
izdk'k pUnz vxzoky cuke mRRkj izns'k jkT; o vU; esa
ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 07 ebZ
2022 ds fo:) jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;ksftr fo'ks"k
vihy la[;k&97@2022 esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk
fnukad&22-07-2022 dks ikfjr fd;s x, vkns'k dk
lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftldk dk;Zdkjh va'k
fuEuor~ gS%

"............At this stage, we are only
examining the issue regarding training part
of Enquiry Officers in the State. Learned
Single Judge vide order dated May 7, 2022
issued direction that no Enquiry Officer in
future shall be appointed for departmental
inquiry, who has not received training from
the Judicial Training & Research Institute
(hereinafter referred to as "JTRI"). We find
2 All. Eklavya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
963
2 Special Appeal Defective No.97 of 2022
that this sweeping direction will withhold
number of inquires, which are pending in
the different departments in the State
keeping in view the infrastructure available
in the JTRI. For conducting such inquiries,
the importance of training to the officers,
who have to hold the departmental inquiry,
may not be lost sight of keeping in view the
repeated violation of principles of natural
justice and the rules governing such
inquiries.

5. In the affidavit filed today, certain
communications have been annexed and
figures have been provided regarding
training programs conducted after passing
of the aforesaid order and from April 1,
2022
onwards.
It
is
claimed
that
departmental inquiry is one of the subject
in the training programme of the Officers
but what we find prima facie is that the
training being imparted is not yielding the
results as required, as still the rules and
principles of natural justice are found to be
violated. The training programme for such
Officers has to be more robust and
specialised, for which the State is directed
to place before the Court a comprehensive
plan.

6. As the sweeping directions issued by
the learned Signle Judge will withhold all
the departmental inquiries, we stay those
directions to the extent - ''that no Officer in
future shall be appointed for departmental
inquiry unless he has received training
from JTRI'. However, we expect that in the
pending inquiries, the Officers holding
such inquiries shall be sensitised without
any
delay
and
further
the
training
programs of the Officers shall be regular
exercise."

2- ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad&22-072022 ds dze esa voxr djkuk gS fd mRRkj izns'k jkT;
ds ljdkjh lsodksa ds fo:) vuq'kklfud dk;Zokfg;k¡
fd, tkus ds laca/k esa mRRkj izns'k ljdkjh lsod
1⁄4vuq'kklu ,oa vihy1⁄2 fu;ekoyh] 1999 izFke la'kks/ku
fu;ekoyh] 2014] 'kklukns'k dze'k% fnukad 22-042015] fnukad& 11-08-2015] fnukad 10-02-2021 vkSj
fnukad 19-07-2022 eq[; :i ls fuxZr fd, x, gSaA

3- mRRkj izns'k ljdkjh lsod 1⁄4vuq'kklu ,oa
vihy1⁄2 fu;ekoyh] 1999 ds fu;e&7 ds v/khu lafLFkr
vuq'kklfud tk¡p ds izdj.k esa fu;qDr tk¡p
vf/kdkfj;ksa ds ekxZn'kZu gsrq eq[; :i ls fuEukafdr
fn'kk funsZ'k 'kklukns'k fnukad 19-07-2022 ds ek/;e
ls fuxZr fd, x, gS%

1⁄4v1⁄2&ftldk vuqikyu vko';d gS (Do's)-

(I) vipkjh dkfeZd }kjk ;fn vfHkys[kksa ds
fujh{k.k dh vis{kk dh tkrh gks rks mls fujh{k.k dk
volj vo'; iznku fd;k tk;sA

(II) vipkjh dkfeZd ls viuk fyf[kr
Li"Vhdj.k 15 fnu ls 01 ekg ds vUnj izLrqr djus
dks dgk tk;sA

(III) ;fn tkap] iwoZ fu;qfDr ds LFkku ls
lacaf/kr gS rks vipkjh ljdkjh lsod dks ml LFkku
ij tkus dh vuqefr ns nh tk;s] tgk¡ mls vfHkys[k
vkfn ns[kus gSA

(IV) tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk vipkjh dkfeZd dks
lk{; ds vUrxZRk fn;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dh Lohdk;Zrk ds
laca/k esa vkifRRk izdV djus dk volj Hkh fn;k tk;sA

(V) vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod dks viuk i{k
izLrqr djus dk ;qfDr;qDr volj fn;k tkuk pkfg,A
;fn vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod vkjksiksa ls bUdkj djrk
gSa] ogka tkap vf/kdkjh vkjksi i= esa IkzLrkfor lkf{k;ksa
(Witneses)dks izfrijh{k.k (Cros-Examination) gsrq
cqyk ldrk gSA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk muds ekSf[kd
lk{;ksa dks vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dh mifLFkfr esa
vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk;sA mi;qZDr lk{;ksa dks
vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i'pkr tk¡p vf/kdkjh ml
ekSf[kd lk{; dks ek¡xsxk vkSj mls vfHkfyf[kr djsxk
ftls vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod us viuh izfrj{kk esa vius
fyf[kr dFku esa izLrqr djuk pkgk FkkA

izfrcU/k ;g gS fd tk¡p vf/kdkjh ,sls dkj.kksa ls
tks fyf[kr :i ls vfHkfyf[kr fd, tk,xsa] fdlh
lk{kh dks cqykus ls bUdkj dj ldsxkA

(VI) tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk tk¡p ds nkSjku xokgksa
ds c;ku vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod ds le{k rFkk
fof/kor 'kiFk fnyokus ds mijkUr fy;k tk;sA

(VII) tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk laiw.kZ tkap dh dk;Zokgh
esa d`r dk;Zokfg;ksa dk vkns'k i=d (order sheet) rS;kj
fd;s tk;s ftl ij ;Fkkle; vkjksfir vf/kdkjh ,oa vU;
lkf{k;ksa ds gLrk{kj djk;k tk;sA tk¡p vk[;k izLrqr djrs
le; tk¡p vk[;k ds lkFk mDr vksn'k i=d dks layXud
ds :i esa vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh dks iszf"kr fd;k tk;sA
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1⁄4c1⁄2&fu"ks/kkRed funsZ'k (Don'ts)-

(I) lkekU;r;k vipkjh dkfeZd dks viuk
Li"Vhdj.k fn;s tkus gsrq 02 ekg ls vf/kd dk le;
u fn;k tk;sA fdUrq vifjgk;Z ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mDRk
le; lhek esa ;qfDr&;qDr (Reasonable) o`f) dh tk
ldrh gSA

(II) tk¡p vf/kdkjh dks tk¡p vk[;k esa izLrkfor
n.M ds fo"k; esa dksbZ earO; vFkok laLrqfr vafdr ugh
dh tk;sA

(III) fcuk mfpr dkj.k ds tkap dk;Zokgh
yfEcr ugh j[kh tk;sA

(IV) lquokbZ] lk{; vFkok vU; dk;Zokgh gsrq
fu;r frfFk;ksa dks vkxs u Vkyk tk;sA ;fn ,slk djuk
vifjgk;Z gks rks mls ldkj.k vkns'k i=d esa
mfYYkf[kr fd;k tk;sA

4- orZeku esa izpfyr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokfg;ksa ls
lEcfU/kr tkap vf/kdkfj;ksa dks izLrj&3 esa mfYYkf[kr
funsZ'kksa dks miyC/k] djkrs gq, muls bl vk'k; dk
izek.k i= izkIr dj fy;k tk;s fd muds }kjk mDr
funsZ'kksa dks i<+dj Hkyh&Hkakfr le> fy;k x;k gSA
Hkfo"; esa Hkh ftruh vuq'kklfud dk;Zokfg;ka lafLFkr
dh tk,a muds tkap vf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh mudh fu;qfDr
i= ds lkFk gh bldh izfr layXu djrs gq, bl
vk'k; dk izek.k&i= izkIr dj fy;k tk;s fd muds
}kjk bu funsZ'kksa dks i<+dj Hkyh&Hkkafr le> fy;k
x;k gSA

5- mi;qZDr ds vkyksd esa vuqjks/k gS fd vius
foHkkx ds fu;a=.kk/khu leLr izf'k{k.k laLFkkvksa dks
mi;qZDr
izLrj&2
esa
mfYYkf[kr
fu;ekofy;ksa@'kklukns'kksa dh O;oLFkkvksa dk laKku
ysrs gq, vk/kkj Hkwr izf'k{k.k (Induction Training)
dk;Zdzeksa esa ikap@N% l= (Period) ,oa lsok dkyhu
izf'k{k.k (In Service Training) ds dk;Zdzeksa esa
,d@nks
l=
(Period)
vuq'kklfud
tk¡p
dk;Zokgh@izfdz;k ds laca/k esa j[kk tk;sA blds lkFk
gh 'kh"kZ izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij] vf/kd ls vf/kd
la[;k esa izHkkoh izf'k{k.k djk;s tkus gsrq O;kid ;kstuk
(Comprehensive
plan)
rFkk
izLrj&4
es
mfYYkf[kr fcUnq ds lEcU/k esa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dh
lwpuk dkfeZd foHkkx dks fnukad 15-09-2022 rd
miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsaA

6- mi;qZDRk izf'k{k.k dk;Zdzeksa esa mu vf/kdkfj;ksa
dks ojh;rk iznku dh tk;s ftUgsa laizfr izpfyr fdlh
vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh esa tk¡p vf/kdkjh ukfer fd;k
x;k gksA

A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of State of U.P. and another vs.
Prakash
Chandra Agrawal
(Special
Appeal Defective No.97 of 2022) passed
an order on 22.7.2022, relevant portion of
the same reads:

"........4. At this stage, we are only
examining the issue regarding training part
of Enquiry Officers in the State. Learned
Single Judge vide order dated May 7, 2022
issued direction that no Enquiry Officer in
future shall be appointed for departmental
inquiry, who has not received training from
the Judicial Training & Research Institute
(hereinafter referred to as "JTRI"). We find
that this sweeping direction will withhold
number of inquires, which are pending in
the different departments in the State
keeping in view the infrastructure available
in the JTRI. For conducting such inquiries,
the importance of training to the officers,
who have to hold the departmental inquiry,
may not be lost sight of keeping in view the
repeated violation of principles of natural
justice and the rules governing such
inquiries.

5. In the affidavit filed today, certain
communications have been annexed and
figures have been provided regarding
training programs conducted after passing
of the aforesaid order and from April 1,
2022
onwards.
It
is
claimed
that
departmental inquiry is one of the subject
in the training programme of the Officers
but what we find prima facie is that the
training being imparted is not yielding the
results as required, as still the rules and
principles of natural justice are found to be
violated. The training programme for such
Officers has to be more robust and
specialised, for which the State is directed
to place before the Court a comprehensive
plan.

6. As the sweeping directions issued by
the learned Signle Judge will withhold all
the departmental inquiries, we stay those
directions to the extent - ''that no Officer in
future shall be appointed for departmental
2 All. Eklavya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
965
inquiry unless he has received training
from JTRI'. However, we expect that in the
pending inquiries, the Officers holding
such inquiries shall be sensitised without
any
delay
and
further
the
training
programs of the Officers shall be regular
exercise.

7. Adjourned to August 24, 2022."

5. Thereafter, another Division Bench
of this Court has also passed a detailed
order on 5.9.2022 in the case of State of
U.P. and another vs. Prakash Chandra
Agarwal: Special Appeal No.351 of 2022.
The order dated 5.9.2022 reads as under:

"This Court by means of an order
dated 22.07.2022 had directed the State to
place before the Court a comprehensive
plan for training of officers of the State
Government
who
are
entrusted
with
conducting inquiries in the departmental
proceedings and also those who are to take
final decision in the matter in their capacity
as
appointing
authorities/disciplinary
authorities. On 02.09.2022 the Court again
required the State to file the said affidavit.

In compliance of the said orders dated
22.07.2022 and 02.09.2022, an affidavit
has been filed by the learned State Counsel
sworn
in
by
the
Special
Secretary,
Secretariat
Administration
Department.
The said affidavit is taken on record.

In the affidavit filed today, it has been
stated that the Chief Secretary of the State
of Uttar Pradesh has issued directions by
means of his letter/order dated 16.08.2022
for
continuing
various
training
programmes in all the departments. The
letter/order has been circulated by the
Additional
Chief
Secretary
in
the
Department of Karmik. According to the
said letter/order, the departments have
required to prepare a comprehensive plan
for effective training of the officers in good
numbers on priority basis and necessary
information has also been directed to be
furnished to the Karmik Department till
15.09.2022.

Learned State Counsel has submitted
that the said information is to be received
by the Karmik Department by 15.09.2022,
as such once the necessary information is
received, the affidavit as ordered vide order
of the Court, dated 22.07.2022 shall be
filed.

For the said purpose, we direct that
after
collecting
the
information
as
mentioned in the order dated 16.08.2022 of
the chief Secretary of the State of U.P., an
affidavit shall be filed before this Court by
the next date of listing giving therein the
details of the comprehensive plan for
training.

Learned State Counsel has also
submitted that as a result of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, which
is under appeal herein, the departmental
proceedings in the entire State of U.P. have
been put to halt though the Court by means
of the order dated 22.07.2022 had stayed
certain direction issued by the learned
Single Judge to the extent, "that no Officer
in
future
shall
be
appointed
for
departmental
inquiry
unless
he
has
received training from JTRI". However, it
has further been stated that after the said
stay order dated 22.07.2022 though now
enquiry officers are being appointed for
conducting the departmental enquiries
without receiving the training from JTRI
but so far as the appointing/disciplinary
authorities are concerned, they are unable
to take final decision in the matters where
the enquiries have been taken to final
stages.

Accordingly, we provide that the
directions issued by the learned Single
Judge to the extent "punishing authority
shall go through the required training
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before passing any punishment order and
also refer to their session/certificate" shall
remain stayed. However, this order whereby
a part of the order passed by learned Single
Judge has been stayed, does not mean that
the appointing/punishing authorities in the
State of U.P. shall not undergo the requisite
training as directed by learned Single
Judge at JTRI.

We make it clear that directions issued
by learned Single Judge are an expression
of concerns of the Court relating to various
irregularities which are noticed by the
Court almost on everyday basis in the
matters
relating
to
departmental
proceedings where on account of unacquaintance with the exact procedure for
conducting departmental proceedings and
thereafter for passing the appropriate
punishment orders, the erring officers many
times go scot-free."

6. Since 2.1.2023 till date, more or
less all the petitions which have come
before this Court as fresh or for hearing,
where order imposing major punishment is
under challenge, are part of this bunch. The
argument in each of these is with regard to
violation of both Rule 7 (iii) and (vii) of the
Rules of 1999. Thus, these all writ petitions
can be decided on the same ground.
However, learned Chief Standing CounselIII requested the Court to decide each and
every case separately.

7. On request of Sri Ravi Singh
Sisodia, learned Chief Standing CounselIII, this Court has taken up each and every
case separately.

Writ-A No.26819 of 2019

8. In the leading Writ Petition
No.26819 of 2019, the petitioner has
approached this Court challenging the
impugned
punishment
order
dated
02.08.2019
passed
by
the
State
Government. Earlier also, the petitioner
was punished by order dated 04.04.2013.
The said order dated 04.04.2013 was set
aside by this Court in Writ Petition
No.30422 (S/B) of2016 (Eklavya Kumar
Vs. State of U.P. and others). The writ
petition was allowed on the ground that the
inquiry was conducted in violation of Rule
7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline
& Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Rules of 1999'). This Court gave a
categorical finding that the earlier inquiry
was concluded merely after taking reply of
the petitioner, without holding any oral
inquiry as per Rule 7 of Rules,1999. The
respondents again proceeded to hold an
inquiry and passed the impugned order
dated 02.08.2019. Now, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the impugned
order dated 02.08.2019, shows that on the
charge sheet, reply of the petitioner was
obtained and no oral inquiry took place,
and thus again procedure prescribed in
Rule 7, is not followed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed before the Court the inquiry
report dated 21.09.2018 (Annexure -9 to
the writ petition). A perusal of the inquiry
report shows that on the charge-sheet, only
reply of the delinquent officer/petitioner is
considered and thereafter the findings on
the same are given. There is no reference to
any oral evidence or documentary evidence
and the manner in which the documentary
evidence was proved, reflected in the
inquiry report. On the basis of the said
report final order of punishment dated
02.08.2019 is passed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the entire inquiry is in
violation of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999;
2 All. Eklavya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
967
inasmuch as there is no oral evidence
submitted by the department to prove the
documents against the petitioner and no
opportunity to petitioner was given to
cross-examine the same. The inquiry is
concluded only on the basis of the reply
submitted by the petitioner.

11. Learned Chief Standing Counsel
could not dispute the fact that the inquiry
report as well as the punishment order are
in violation of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999.

12. Hence, the impugned order dated
02.08.2019, cannot stand and is set aside.
Consequences to follow.

13. The respondents may, if they so
desire, proceed to hold a fresh inquiry
against the petitioner by serving a fresh
charge sheet along with documentary and
oral evidence and following the proper
procedure of law. The writ petition is
allowed.

Writ-A No.3171 of 2021

14.