# Jawahar Lal Gupta v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1324
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-14
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2717 of 2004
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jawahar-lal-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-53462
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
Rules 3 & 7 - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Censure - Principle of
natural justice - Application - Allegation
of submitting incorrect report was made -
However,
the
respondent
initiated
proceeding after 17 years - No assertion
in the Inquiry Report as to any date was
fixed
by
Inquiry
Officer,
when
the
petitioner was called for personal hearing
- Inquiry Officer has failed to examine any
witness
to
prove
photocopy
of
the
documents
-
Effect
-
Held,
strict
adherence to the procedure prescribed
under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 is mandatory
for imposing major penalty. The procedure
as prescribed under Rule 7 is nothing but
incorporation of principles of natural
justice
-
Held
further,
the
inquiry
proceedings
are
vitiated
for
nonobservance of procedure as prescribed
under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 as well as
being in violation of principles of natural
justice. (Para 20 and 57)
B. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
Rules 9 - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Censure - Principle of
natural justice - Non consideration of the
representation - Effect - How can nonapplication of mind be reflected - Held,
giving of reason for a decision is one of
the fundamentals of good administration.
It
constitutes
a
safeguard
against
arbitrariness on the part of the decisionmaker - Application of mind is only
reflected by the reasons given in the
judgment. An order supported by reasons
ensures
that
the
adjudicatory
authority/court genuinely addressed itself
to the arguments and evidence advanced
5 All. Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
1325
at the time of the hearing - Nonconsideration of representation of the
petitioner against the findings of the
Inquiry Officer is in violation of sub-Rule 4
of Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 as well as also in
violation of principles of natural justice.
(Para 37, 39 and 57)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,865 of 98,340. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39865 for what follows._

1324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submissions and well-researched arguments
have significantly contributed to the just
and proper adjudication of the issue raised
in the aforesaid applications.

40. The applications warrant no
indulgence of this Court, as no material
irregularity has been found in the impugned
summoning order. Accordingly, the present
application, along with all connected
applications, stands dismissed in the
aforesaid terms, with liberty to the
applicants to file fresh applications on
merits at the appropriate stage, after
compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. At
that stage, the applicants will have the
benefit of access to the entire case diary,
enabling them to advance appropriate
grounds for seeking quashing of the chargesheet, if so advised.

41. The Registrar (Compliance) is
hereby directed, through the Registrar
General of this Court, to transmit a copy of
this order forthwith to all the learned
District Judges in the State. The District
Judges shall, in turn, ensure that a copy of
this order is circulated to all Judicial
Officers within their respective judgeships.
Additionally, a copy of this order shall be
sent to the Director, Judicial Training and
Research Institute (J.T.R.I.), Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh, for record and future
reference.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1324
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ-A No. 2717 of 2004

Jawahar Lal Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vikas Singh, J.P. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
Rules 3 & 7 - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Censure - Principle of
natural justice - Application - Allegation
of submitting incorrect report was made -
However,
the
respondent
initiated
proceeding after 17 years - No assertion
in the Inquiry Report as to any date was
fixed
by
Inquiry
Officer,
when
the
petitioner was called for personal hearing
- Inquiry Officer has failed to examine any
witness
to
prove
photocopy
of
the
documents
-
Effect
-
Held,
strict
adherence to the procedure prescribed
under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 is mandatory
for imposing major penalty. The procedure
as prescribed under Rule 7 is nothing but
incorporation of principles of natural
justice
-
Held
further,
the
inquiry
proceedings
are
vitiated
for
nonobservance of procedure as prescribed
under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 as well as
being in violation of principles of natural
justice. (Para 20 and 57)
B. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
Rules 9 - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Censure - Principle of
natural justice - Non consideration of the
representation - Effect - How can nonapplication of mind be reflected - Held,
giving of reason for a decision is one of
the fundamentals of good administration.
It
constitutes
a
safeguard
against
arbitrariness on the part of the decisionmaker - Application of mind is only
reflected by the reasons given in the
judgment. An order supported by reasons
ensures
that
the
adjudicatory
authority/court genuinely addressed itself
to the arguments and evidence advanced
5 All. Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
1325
at the time of the hearing - Nonconsideration of representation of the
petitioner against the findings of the
Inquiry Officer is in violation of sub-Rule 4
of Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 as well as also in
violation of principles of natural justice.
(Para 37, 39 and 57)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs St. of U.P.; (2010) 10
SCC 539
2. St. of Uttaranchal Vs Kharak Singh; 2008 (8)
SCC 236
3. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha; 2010
(2) SCC 772
4. Writ Petition No. 1126 of 2011; Pragyesh
Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
5. Ram Rekha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2014
(9) ADJ 425 (DB)
6. Mahesh Narain Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2011(5) ADJ 177
7. Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs St. of Uttar Pradesh &
ors.; (2010) 10 SCC 539
8. St. of Uttaranchal Vs Kharak Singh; 2008 (8)
SCC 236
9. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha; 2010
(2) SCC 772
10. Writ Petition No. 1126 of 2011; Pragyesh
Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
17.08.2012
11. Ram Rekha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2014
(9) ADJ 425 (DB)
12. Mahesh Narain Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2011(5) ADJ 177
13. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited Vs Rabindranath Choubey;
reported in (2020) 18 SCC 71
14. Breen v. A.E.U. (1971) 2 QB 175
15. G. Vallikumari Vs Andhra Education Society
& ors.; (2010) 2 SCC 497
16. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank;
2009 (3) SCC 570
17. St. of M.P. Vs Bani Singh & anr.; 1990
(Suppl) SCC 738
18. St. of Andhra Pradesh Vs N. Radhakishan;
(1998) 4 SCC 154
19. P.V. Mahadevan Vs M.D., T.N. Housing
Board; (2005) 6 SCC 636
20. UCO Bank & ors. Vs Rajendra Shankar
Shukla; (2018) 14 SCC 92
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed for
issuance of writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 23.02.2004 (Annexure No. 1 to
the writ petition.)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner
was
appointed
as
Supply
Inspector on 16.05.1973. In the year 1984,
the petitioner was posted as Supply
Inspector at Kanpur. By the order dated
05.04.1999 passed by the Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies, Uttar Pradeshrespondent no. 2, the petitioner was placed
under suspension. The Regional Food
Controller, Jhansi was appointed as Inquiry
Officer by the order dated 05.04.1999. The
Regional Food Controller, Jhansi issued a
charge-sheet dated 21.01.2000 to the
petitioner containing two charges. The
petitioner was directed to submit its reply
within two weeks from the date of receipt
of the charge sheet and, in case, no reply
was submitted by the petitioner within the
time limit prescribed then, it will be
deemed that petitioner has nothing to say in
the matter. After receiving the charge-sheet,
the petitioner wrote a letter to the Inquiry
Officer on 06.04.2000 mentioning therein
that the charge-sheet was received by the
petitioner on 03.04.2000 and since matter is
1326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17 years old, he will try to submit his reply
within time frame or will request for further
time. Thereafter, another letter dated
11.04.2000 was submitted by the petitioner
to the Inquiry Officer requesting him to
furnish documents mentioned in the letter
dated 11.04.2000, so that, he may give
effective reply to the charge-sheet. On
17.04.2000,
the
petitioner
submitted
another letter requesting for two weeks'
further time to submit reply and has also
requested that the documents mentioned in
letter dated 11.04.2000 be provided to the
petitioner. Again
on 02.05.2000,
the
petitioner requested that the documents
referred in letter dated 11.04.2000 be
provided to the petitioner and as the time
for submitting the reply is going to expire
on 02.05.2000, he may be granted one
month more time to submit his reply. By
order dated 10.05.2000 passed by the
Inquiry Officer, fifteen days' time was
granted to the petitioner to submit his
explanation with a rider that, in case,
explanation is not submitted by petitioner,
then on the basis of documents, Inquiry
Report will be submitted. On 24.05.2000,
the petitioner submitted his reply denying
all the charges levelled against him and
also giving his explanation to the charges.
Along with his reply, petitioner submitted
affidavit of Prem Narayan Gupta dated
23.05.2000, affidavit of Kasturi Lal dated
23.05.2000 and affidavit of Surenderjit
Singh dated 23.05.2000 in support of his
explanation as the documentary evidences.
By letter dated 24.06.2000, the petitioner
was directed to appear before the Inquiry
Officer on 04.07.2000 for personal hearing.
On 04.07.2000, the petitioner appeared
before the Inquiry Officer for personal
hearing but the inquiry could not be
completed on that day. On 11.07.2000, the
petitioner submitted certain documents in
support of his case along with an
application. By order dated 30.10.2000, the
disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 2
called for a reply from the petitioner
regarding Inquiry Officer's Report dated
21.08.2000. Along with the order dated
30.10.2000, the petitioner was served upon
the Inquiry Report which was submitted by
the Inquiry Officer on 21.08.2000. Copy of
the Inquiry Report has been annexed as
Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. On
12.12.2000, the petitioner submitted his
reply to the notice dated 30.10.2000 issued
by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 by
order dated 23.07.2001 awarded following
penalties:-

i) petitioner was reverted to his
initial basic pay and he was also awarded a
censure entry.

Against
the
order
dated
23.07.2001, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before respondent No. 1, the appeal
filed by the petitioner was partly allowed
and the punishment order dated 23.07.2001
given by respondent No. 2 was set aside.
The petitioner was awarded punishment of
stoppage
of
two
annual
increments
permanently and also a censure entry by
order dated 23.02.2004. Hence, the present
writ petition.

3. Following submissions are made
by
the
counsel
for
the
petitioner
challenging the order impugned:

i. the entire inquiry proceeding
was
vitiated
for
non-observance
of
principles of natural justice as well as
procedure as prescribed under Rules 7 and
9 of The U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
(hereinafter referred as 'Rules, 1999');

ii.
the
charges
against
the
petitioner were stale as the report was
allegedly submitted by the petitioner in the
5 All. Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
1327
year 1983 whereas the charge-sheet was
issued to the petitioner in the year 2000,
after lapse of 17 years;

iii. the disciplinary authority had
passed the order imposing major penalty in
violation of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 9 of Rules,
1999 and;

iv. lastly, it has been submitted by
the counsel for the petitioner that penalty
imposed on the petitioner was excessive.

4. Refuting the submissions made by
counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel has submitted that the inquiry
proceedings were carried out strictly in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 and in
observance of principles of natural justice.
The disciplinary authority has awarded
punishment
after
considering
reply
submitted by the petitioner in accordance
with sub-Rule 4 of Rule 9 of Rules, 1999.
The punishment awarded is not excessive
and learned Standing Counsel has also
refuted the argument of the counsel for the
petitioner that the charges against the
petitioner are stale.

5. Before considering the rival
submissions, it would be appropriate to
look into the provisions as contained in The
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999.

6. Rule 3 of The U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 provides for major penalties which
are quoted as under:-

"........Major Penalties:

(i) Withholding of increments
with cumulative effect;

(ii) Reduction to a lower post or
grade or time scale or to a lower stage in a
time scale;

(iii) Removal from the service
which does not disqualify from future
employment;

(iv) Dismissal from the service
which disqualifies from future employment.

Explanation. - The following
shall not amount to penalty within the
meaning of this rule, namely:

(I) Withholding of increment of a
Government servant for failure to pass a
departmental examination or for failure to
fulfil any other condition in accordance
with the rules or orders governing tire
service;

(ii) Stoppage at the efficiency bar
in the time scale of pay on account of ones
not being found fit to cross the efficiency
bar;

(iii)
Reversion
of
a
person
appointed on probation to the service
during or at the end of the period of
probation in accordance with the terms of
appointment or the rules and orders
governing such probation;

(iv) Termination of the service of
a person appointed on probation during or
at the end of the period of probation in
accordance with the terms of the service or
the rules and orders governing such
probation."

7. The procedure for imposing major
penalties is provided under Rule 7 of the
Rules, 1999 and the same is quoted 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
1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
evidence and the name of the witnesses
proposed to prove the same alongwith oral
evidence, 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 chargesheet 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, alongwith
the copy of the 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.

(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
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.

(viii)The Inquiry Officer may
summon any witness to give evidence or
require any person to produce documents
before
him
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of
Attendance of Witnesses 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
5 All. Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
1329
the proceeding inspite of the service of the
notice on him 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 of the disciplinary authority
having regard to the circumstances of the
case so permits :

Provided that this rule shall not
apply in following cases :

(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 practicable 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."

8. Rule 9 of the The U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 provides for action on an Inquiry
Report. Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 is quoted as
under:

"9. Action on Inquiry Report. -

(1)The
disciplinary
authority
may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or
any other Inquiry Officer under intimation
to the charged Government servant. The
Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to
hold the inquiry from such stage as directed
by the disciplinary authority, according to
the provisions of Rule 7.

(2)The
disciplinary
authority
shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its
own findings thereon for reasons to be
recorded.

(3)In case the charges are not
proved, the charged Government servant
shall be exonerated by the disciplinary
authority of the charges and inform him
accordingly;

(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."

9. Elaborating his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that on 04.07.2000, the petitioner was
called by the Inquiry Officer for personal
hearing. On 04.07.2000, the inquiry could
1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not be completed and petitioner was
granted one week's further time to submit
certain documents which were submitted
by the petitioner on 11.07.2000. It has been
further submitted that after 04.07.2000, no
date was fixed in the inquiry by the Inquiry
Officer and straight away, Inquiry Report
was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on
21.08.2000.

10. To buttress his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited the attention of this Court to the
averments made in paragraph Nos. 14, 15,
16 and 17 of the writ petition. Paragraph
Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the writ petition
are quoted as under:-

" 14. That on 24.6.2000, the
Inquiry Officer sent a letter to the
petitioner asking him to appear on
4.7.2000 for personal hearing. A photocopy
of the letter dated 24.6.2000 sent by the
Inquiry Officer to the petitioner asking him
to appear on 4.7.2000 for personal hearing
is being annexed herewith as Annexure
No.9 to this writ petition.

15.
That
on
4.7.2000,
the
petitioner appeared before the Inquiry
Officer for personal hearing but the Inquiry
could not be completed on that date and the
Inquiry Officer granted one week further
time to the petitioner to submit certain
documents.

It may be mentioned that before
calling the petitioner for personal hearing
on 4.7.2000, the Inquiry Officer had not
conducted any inquiry except providing
some partial oral hearing to the petitioner
in respect of charge sheet dated 21.1.2000
in order to prove the charges levelled
against the petitioner and the department
had not proved the charges levelled against
the petitioner in the charge sheet dated
21.1.2000.

16.
That on 11.7.2000,
the
petitioner submitted the certain documents
to the Inquiry Officer in pursuance of the
oral instructions given by the Inquiry
Officer on 4.7.2000 to the petitioner. A
photocopy of the letter dated 11.7.2000 vide
which the petitioner submitted certain
documents to the Inquiry Officer is being
annexed herewith as Annexure No.10 to this
writ petition.

17. That except 4.7.2000, no
other date was fixed by the Inquiry Officer
in respect of the charge sheet dated
21.1.2000 to conduct the inquiry against
the petitioner but all of a sudden without
holding any inquiry, the Inquiry Officer
submitted the inquiry report to the opposite
party no.2 holding therein that the two
charges levelled against the petitioner are
partially proved."

11. Counsel for the petitioner also
invited attention of the Court to the counter
affidavit filed by respondents, especially to
paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit and
submitted that there is general denial of the
averments made in paragraph Nos. 14 to 17
of the writ petition in paragraph No. 5.
Paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit
submitted by the respondents is quoted as
under:-

"5.
That
the
contents
of
Paragraphs 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 21
and 22 of the writ petition are not admitted
at this juncture, because he was provided
proper and full opportunity by the Enquiry
Officer and all relevant documents were
supplied to him during the pendency of
enquiry and only, thereafter, the punishing
authority passed the punishment order. It is
also pertinent to mention here that after
passing of the punishment order, the
petitioner filed an appeal to Government
and the matter was again examined by the
5 All. Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
1331
Government on the basis of the averments
made by the petitioner in the said appeal. It
is not proper on the part of the petitioner
that the enquiry was initiated after 17 years
because
preliminary
enquiry
was
conducted by the C. B. I. only the decision
was taken the conduct departmental
enquiry under Rules."

12. It has been submitted by counsel
for the petitioner that there is no denial by
the respondents in the counter affidavit and
there is no assertion in the Inquiry Report
as to any date was fixed by Inquiry Officer
after or before 04.07.2000 when the
petitioner was called for personal hearing.
Inquiry could not be completed on that day,
i.e. 04.07.2000, the inquiry was adjourned
and no further date was fixed in the inquiry
and straight away, a report has been
submitted against the petitioner.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon judgments of Supreme Court in
cases of Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others reported in
(2010) 10 SCC 539, State of Uttaranchal
Vs. Kharak Singh reported in 2008 (8)
SCC 236, State of U.P. and others Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in 2010 (2)
SCC 772, the Division Bench of this Court
in cases of Pragyesh Mishra Vs. State of
U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 1126
of 2011, Ram Rekha Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported in 2014 (9) ADJ
425 (DB), Mahesh Narain Gupta Vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in
2011(5) ADJ 177.

14. The Supreme Court in case of
Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 10
SCC
539
held
that
disciplinary
proceedings
against
a
Government
Employee is in the nature of quasijudicial proceedings and the principles of
natural justice required to be observed
strictly. Paragraph No. 16 of Mohd.
Yunus Khan Vs. State of U.P. (supra) is
quoted as under:-

"16.
We
have
to
proceed,
keeping in mind the trite law that holding
disciplinary
proceedings
against
a
government employee and imposing a
punishment on his being found guilty of
misconduct under the statutory rules is in
the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings.
Though, the technical rules of procedure
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 and the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in a
domestic enquiry, however, the principles
of natural justice require to be observed
strictly. Therefore, the enquiry is to be
conducted fairly and reasonably and the
enquiry report must contain reasons for
reaching the conclusion that the charge
framed against the delinquent stood
proved against him. It cannot be an ipse
dixit of the inquiry officer. Punishment
for misconduct can be imposed in
consonance with the statutory rules and
principles
of
natural
justice.
(See
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab &
Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395; Union of India v.
H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364; Anil Kumar
v. Presiding Officer, AIR 1985 SC 1121;
Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008) 3
SCC 484; and Union of India v. Prakash
Kumar Tandon, (2009) 2 SCC 541."

15. The Supreme Court in case of
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Kharak Singh
reported in 2008 (8) SCC 236, laid down
following principles in paragraph No. 11
of the judgment, which is quoted as under:-

"11) From the above decisions,
the following principles would emerge:
1332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

i)
The
enquiries
must
be
conducted bona fide and care must be taken
to see that the enquiries do not become
empty formalities.

ii) If an officer is a witness to any
of the incidents which is the subject matter
of the enquiry or if the enquiry was
initiated on a report of an officer, then in
all fairness he should not be the Enquiry
Officer. If the said position becomes known
after the appointment of the Enquiry
Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be
taken to see that the task of holding an
enquiry is assigned to some other officer.

iii)
In
an
enquiry,
the
employer/department should take steps first
to
lead
evidence
against
the
workman/delinquent
charged,
give
an
opportunity to him to cross-examine the
witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter,
the workman/delinquent be asked whether
he wants to lead any evidence and asked to
give any explanation about the evidence led
against him.

iv) On receipt of the enquiry
report, before proceeding further, it is
incumbent
on
the
part
of
the
disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a
copy of the enquiry report and all
connected materials relied on by the
enquiry officer to enable him to offer his
views, if any."

16. The Supreme Court in case of
State of U.P. and others Vs. Saroj
Kumar Sinha reported in 2010 (2) SCC
772 held that even, in case, where the
delinquent employee failed to appear in
the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer can
proceed with the inquiry ex-parte but
even in such case, the Inquiry Officer
shall record the statement of witnesses
mentioned in the chargesheet in absence
of delinquent employee. Paragraph Nos.
25, 26, 27 and 28 of the judgment in case
of State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha
(supra) are quoted as under:-

"25. The first inquiry report is
vitiated also on the ground that the
inquiry officers failed to fix any date for
the appearance of the respondent to
answer the charges. Rule 7(x) clearly
provides as under:

"(x)
Where
the
charged
Government servant does not appear on the
date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of
the proceeding inspite of the service of the
notice on him 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."

26. A bare perusal of the
aforesaid sub-Rule shows that when the
respondent had failed to submit the
explanation to the charge sheet it was
incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a
date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is
only in a case when the Government
servant despite notice of the date fixed
failed to appear that the enquiry officer can
proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in
such circumstances it is incumbent on the
enquiry officer to record the statement of
witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet.
Since the Government servant is absent, he
would clearly lose the benefit of cross
examination
of
the
witnesses.
But
nonetheless in order to establish the
charges the department is required to
produce the necessary evidence before the
enquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the
charge that the enquiry officer has acted as
a prosecutor as well as a judge. Enquiry
officer acting in a quasi judicial authority
is in the position of an independent
adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a
5 All. Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
1333
representative
of
the
department/
disciplinary authority/ Government. 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
oral evidence has been examined the
documents have not been proved, and could
not have been taken into consideration to
conclude that the charges have been proved
against the respondents.

27. Apart from the above by
virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution
of India the departmental inquiry had to be
conducted in accordance with rules of
natural justice. It is a basic requirement of
rules of natural justice that an employee be
given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard in any proceeding which may
culminate in a punishment being imposed
on the employee.

28. 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. The rules
of natural justice are required to be
observed to ensure not only that justice is
done but is manifestly seen to be done. The
object of rules of natural justice is to
ensure that a government servant is treated
fairly in proceedings which may culminate
in imposition of punishment including
dismissal/removal from service. In the case
of Shaughnessy v. United States, 1953 345
US 206 (Jackson J), a judge of the United
States Supreme Court has said "procedural
fairness
and
regularity
are
of
the
indispensable essence of liberty. Severe
substantive laws can be endured if they are
fairly and impartially applied."

17. The Division Bench of this Court
in Pragyesh Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and
others in Writ Petition No. 1126 of 2011
decided on 17.08.2012 interpreting the subRule 7 of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 held that
provisions of Rule 7(v), (vii) and (x) has to
be followed before imposing major penalty.
The relevant paragraph Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48
and 49 of the judgment are quoted as
under:-

"45. As already observed, subrule (vii) contemplates that Inquiry Officer
must ensure supply of the list of documents
and witnesses relied by opposite parties to
support the charges. The Enquiry Officer
did not place anything on record as to when
the said list was made available to
petitioner. Admittedly, no witness was
examined by Enquiry Officer in support of
charges, hence to hold the charges to be
proved, is infact a finding recorded with no
evidence whatsoever at all.

46. It is not in dispute that the
disciplinary proceeding was started against
the petitioner under the U.P. Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules,1999 in which there is a complete
mechanism for conducting the disciplinary
proceeding. Here in the present case, the
major penalty of dismissal from service has
been inflicted upon the petitioner, therefore,
it would be imperative for us to ensure,
before coming to ultimate conclusion of the
writ petition that as to whether the
procedure prescribed for imposing major
penalty under Rule 7 (v), (vii) and 7(x) has
been followed or not.

47. From the perusal of the Sub
Rule 7 (vii) & (x) of the 1999 Rule, it
reflects that if the charged Government
servant denies the charges then in that
eventuality the Inquiry Officer is under an
obligation to call the witnesses proposed in
the charge-sheet and record their oral
1334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statements in presence of the charged
employee,
who
shall
be
given
an
opportunity
to
cross-examine
such
witnesses. After recording the aforesaid
statements, the Inquiry Officer is required
to record the oral statements of the
witnesses of charged Government servant if
any, in case he desires to produce them in
his defence.

48. After going through the
provisions as provided under Sub Rule (vii)
and (x) of 7 of Rules 1999, as we have
noticed that in the event of denial of
charges, the Inquiry Officer is under a
legal obligation to call the witnesses and
provide an opportunity to the charged
Government servant to cross-examine the
inquiry witnesses, enjoins a duty upon the
Inquiry Officer to inform the charged
employee about the date, place and time for
holding the enquiry, as unless the charged
employee is made aware of the date, place
and time of the enquiry proceeding, he
cannot
make
himself
available
to
participate in the inquiry. It would further
reveal that mere recording the statements of
the witnesses will not be sufficient to submit
an inquiry report unless each and every
charge
levelled
against
the
charged
employee is discussed separately and is
proved or not proved after considering the
material available on record including the
oral statements given by the witnesses and
their cross examination if any.

49. Here in the present case, as
would appear from the perusal of the
record and the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner, which has not
been disputed by the learned Standing
Counsel, that the charged employee at no
point of time was informed about the date,
place and time for holding the inquiry.
Otherwise also even if it is assumed that
the charged employee was informed about
the date, place and time for holding inquiry
even then the Inquiry Officer has failed to
deal with each and every charge separately
and found them to be proved, in our
considered opinion mere recording that the
charges are proved cannot be said to be
sufficient unless the charge is proved in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the Rules 1999 which is meant for
conducting disciplinary proceeding."

18. Again the Division Bench of this
Court in case of Ram Rekha Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in 2014
(9) ADJ 425 (DB) held that disciplinary
proceedings in violation of provisions of
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 and also in violation
of basic principles of natural justice are
liable
to
be
quashed.
The
relevant
paragraph Nos. 14, 15, and 16 of the
judgment are quoted as under:-

"14.
Having
given
anxious
consideration to the rival submissions and
having examined the record with reference
to the law applicable, we are unable to
approve the process of the disciplinary
proceedings, as adopted by the respondents
in this case; and we are clearly of the view
that the punishment order consequent to
these invalid proceedings deserve to be
annulled while leaving it open for the
respondents to take up the proceedings in
accordance with law.

15. It remains trite that in
departmental inquiry proceedings, the
requirement of rules in particular and the
principles of natural justice in general are
required
to
be
followed;
and
the
proceedings held in violation thereof
cannot be sustained. In the case of Saroj
Kumar Sinha (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme
Court, inter alia, said,

29. Apart from the above, by
virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution
5 All. Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
1335
of India the departmental enquiry had to be
conducted in accordance with the rules of
natural justice. It is a basic requirement of
the rules of natural justice that an
employee
be
given
a
reasonable
opportunity
of
being
heard
in
any
proceedings which may culminate in
punishment
being
imposed
on
the
employee.

30. When a departmental 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 inquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The rules of natural justice are
required to be observed to ensure not only
that justice is done but is manifestly seen to
be done. The object of rules of natural
justice is to ensure that a government
servant is treated fairly in proceedings
which may culminate in imposition of
punishment including dismissal/removal
from service.

16. It is also not a matter of much
debate that even if the delinquent does not
submit his reply to the charge sheet the
Inquiry Officer cannot conclude that the
charges
stood
automatically
proved.
Recording of necessary evidence with
participation of the delinquent in such a
process is also the basic requirement of fair
opportunity of hearing in such matters of
disciplinary proceedings. ........"

19. The Division Bench of this Court
in case of Mahesh Narain Gupta Vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in
2011(5) ADJ 177 has held the department
is just like a plaintiff in a suit and the initial
burden lies on the department to prove the
charges which can certainly be proved by
collecting
some
oral
evidence
or
documentary evidence in presence and
notice of the charged employee. Paragraph
Nos. 16 and 17 of the judgment are quoted
as under:-

" 16. At this stage, we are to
observe that in the disciplinary proceedings
against a delinquent, the department is just
like a plaintiff and initial burden lies on the
department to prove the charges which can
certainly be proved only by collecting some
oral evidence or documentary evidence, in
presence and notice of charged employee.
Even if the department is to rely its own
record/document
which
are
already
available, then also the enquiry officer by
looking into them and by assigning his own
reason after analysis , will have to record a
finding that those documents are sufficient
enough to prove the charges.

17. In no case, approach of the
Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been
submitted, the charges will have to be
automatically proved can be approved. This
will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly
said that disciplinary authority has a right
to proceed against delinquent employee in
ex parte manner but some evidence will
have to be collected and justification to
sustain the charges will have to be stated in
detail. The approach of the enquiry officer
of automatic prove of charges on account
of
non
filing
of
reply
is
clearly
misconceived and erroneous.