# Kanchan Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 443
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 12790 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kanchan-kumar-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53568
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

impugned dismissal order dated june21,2024,
passed
by
the
Vice
Chairman,
Kanpur
development authority, imposing the major
penalty of dismissal from service on the
petitioner
is
legally
sustainable-Petitioner
charged with the serious misconduct for
allegedly preparing duplicate files and forged
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
freehold sale deeds for non-allottees of plots in
KDA, causing financial loss.

Headnotes
Service Law-Disciplinary proceedings-U.P.
Government
Servants
(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules,1999-Major
penalty
of
dismissal
upheld-remand
directions
complied with-no violation of natural
justice
or
1999
Rules/G.O.
2015Punishment justified for substantial losspetition dismissed.

Held
Dismissal from service for proven charges of
forgery, cheating and conspiracy(causing Rs.
600lakhs via forged freehold deeds for nonallottees) is sustainable under Rule 3 of Rules
1999-Appellate authority were complied withpetitioner was granted opportunity to submit his
reply-reply filed by petitioner was considered
but found inadequate-petitioner was afforded
opportunity for personal hearing and was
satisfied with it-the findings returned against
each charge are based on material on record
and all charges were rightly proved-Punishment
proportionate for grave misconduct-Hence, no
interference is required-the writ petition is
dismissed.(Para 21 to 25) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & Anr (2014):
AHC:95008-DB, St. of Raj. Vs Bhupendra Singh
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1908-referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules,1999
List of Keywords
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules,1999; disciplinary proceedings; ;charge;
suspension; misconduct; dismissal; nautral justice;
non-allottees;
freehold
deeds;
forgery;
departmental enquiry.
Case Arising From
Service Law: WRIT-A No. - 12790 of 2024
From the judgment and order dated 16.07.2025 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Kanchan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Advs. for Respondent:-
Anand Prakash Paul,C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi

## Text

_Characters 0–39,194 of 44,554. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39194 for what follows._

7 All. Kanchan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
443
Executive as the case may be. There is no
way, courts could act like appellate
authorities especially when a classification
is introduced by way of a policy decision
clearly
identifying
the
group
of
beneficiaries by analysing the relevant
materials

17. The question as to whether a
classification is reasonable or not is to be
answered
on
the
touchstone
of
a
reasonable, common man's approach,
keeping in mind the avowed object behind
it. If the right to equality is to be termed as
a genus, a right to non-discrimination
becomes a specie. When two identified
groups are not equal, certainly they cannot
be treated as a homogeneous group. A
reasonable classification thus certainly
would not injure the equality enshrined
under Article 14 when there exists an
intelligible differentia between two groups
having a rational relation to the object.
Therefore, an interference would only be
called for on the Court being convinced
that the classification causes inequality
among similarly placed persons. The role
of the court being restrictive, generally, the
task is best left to the authorities
concerned. When a classification is made
on the recommendation made by a body of
experts constituted for the purpose, Courts
will have to be more wary of entering into
the said arena as its interference would
amount to substituting its views, a process
which is best avoided.

18. As long as the classification
does not smack of inherent arbitrariness
and conforms to justice and fair play, there
may not be any reason to interfere with it.
It is the wisdom of the other Wings which is
required to be respected except when a
classification is bordering on arbitrariness,
artificial
difference
and
itself
being
discriminatory. A decision made sans the
aforesaid situation cannot be tested with
either a suspicious or a microscopic eye.
Good faith and intention are to be
presumed unless the contrary exists. One
has to keep in mind that the role of the
Court is on the illegality involved as
against the governance."

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
Court is of the view that there is no
arbitrariness in the action of respondents.
An artificial similarity has no legal basis,
therefore, the prayer in this writ petition is
rejected and accordingly, instant writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 443
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 12790 of 2024

Kanchan Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anand Prakash Paul, C.S.C., Pradeep
Kumar Tripathi

Issue for consideration
The key issue involved in this case whether the
impugned dismissal order dated june21,2024,
passed
by
the
Vice
Chairman,
Kanpur
development authority, imposing the major
penalty of dismissal from service on the
petitioner
is
legally
sustainable-Petitioner
charged with the serious misconduct for
allegedly preparing duplicate files and forged
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
freehold sale deeds for non-allottees of plots in
KDA, causing financial loss.

Headnotes
Service Law-Disciplinary proceedings-U.P.
Government
Servants
(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules,1999-Major
penalty
of
dismissal
upheld-remand
directions
complied with-no violation of natural
justice
or
1999
Rules/G.O.
2015Punishment justified for substantial losspetition dismissed.

Held
Dismissal from service for proven charges of
forgery, cheating and conspiracy(causing Rs.
600lakhs via forged freehold deeds for nonallottees) is sustainable under Rule 3 of Rules
1999-Appellate authority were complied withpetitioner was granted opportunity to submit his
reply-reply filed by petitioner was considered
but found inadequate-petitioner was afforded
opportunity for personal hearing and was
satisfied with it-the findings returned against
each charge are based on material on record
and all charges were rightly proved-Punishment
proportionate for grave misconduct-Hence, no
interference is required-the writ petition is
dismissed.(Para 21 to 25) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & Anr (2014):
AHC:95008-DB, St. of Raj. Vs Bhupendra Singh
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1908-referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules,1999
List of Keywords
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules,1999; disciplinary proceedings; ;charge;
suspension; misconduct; dismissal; nautral justice;
non-allottees;
freehold
deeds;
forgery;
departmental enquiry.
Case Arising From
Service Law: WRIT-A No. - 12790 of 2024
From the judgment and order dated 16.07.2025 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Kanchan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Advs. for Respondent:-
Anand Prakash Paul,C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk
Grade-II in Kanpur Development Authority
on 30.04.1990. In the year 2010 he was
granted promotion on the post of Clerk
Grade-I.

2. Petitioner was put under suspension
vide order dated 26.02.2020 on ground that
he, on basis of forged documents, prepared
freehold sale deeds in favour of such persons,
who were not actual allottees, which has also
caused financial loss running into crores of
rupees.

3. Aforesaid order was challenged by
way of filing Writ-A No. 5888 of 2021,
however, meanwhile inquiry report was
submitted, therefore, the writ petition was
dismissed being infructuous vide order dated
16.09.2021.

4. Earlier petitioner was issued a charge
sheet dated 30.05.2020 on six charges. On
receipt of charge sheet, it is the case of
petitioner that, he has submitted repeated
applications that respondents may supply
relied on documents but the same were not
supplied. Accordingly, he filed a short
reply dated 16.08.2021. Thereafter inquiry
report dated 02.09.2021 was submitted and
relevant
part
thereof
is
mentioned
hereinafter:
7 All. Kanchan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
445

"पत्ावली पर उपलब्ध अवभलेखों एवं आरोप पत् के
परीिीलि से यह स्पष्ट हो रहा है वक छः प्रकरणों से सम्बवन्द्धत
आरोपों में अपचारी कमषचारी पर मुख्यतः आरोप यह है वक अपचारी
कमषचारी सम्बवन्द्धत व्यवतत्तयों के साथ र्डयंत् एंव दुरवभसवन्द्ध कर
प्रश्नगत भूखण्डों का फ्री होल्ड डीड वववभन्द्ि वतवथयों को फजी एवं
कूटरवचत दस्तावेज तैयार करके कराया गया, जबवक उक्त भूखण्ड का
आवंटि संबवन्द्धत व्यवक्तयों के पक्ष में कभी िहीं वकया गया था।
धिरावि सत्यापि का उत्तरदावयत्व लेखा ववभाग के कावमषकों का
होता है, परन्द्तु वबिा आवंटि हुए उक्त भूखण्डों के आवंटि के फजी
अवभलेखों के आधार पर फ्री-होल्ड/विबन्द्धि वकये जािे ववर्यक
पत्ावली तैयार करिा तथा मूल अवभलेखों का भली-भााँवत जॉच
वकये वबिा तथा कवतपय प्रकरणों में डुप्लीकेट पत्ावली खुलवाकर
प्रावधकरण को ववत्तीय हावि पहुाँचाते हुये अवियवमत रूप से रवजस्री
की कायषवाही पूणष करवायी गयी, इस हेतु ववक्रय वलवपक उत्तरदायी
है।

अपचारी कमषचारी को पयाषप्त समय देिे के बाद भी
अभी तक वकसी भी आरोप के सम्बन्द्ध में कोई तथ्यात्मक
साक्ष्य/अवभलेख/जवाब प्रस्तुत िहीं वकया गया है। अवपतु
सरसरी/सतही तथा आरोप के प्रत्युत्तर में ि होकर मात् कथात्मक
जवाब बार-बार प्रस्तुत कर जॉच को ववलवम्बत करिे का प्रयास
वकया जाता रहा है। साथ ही प्रकारान्द्तर में जि सूचिा अवधकार
अवधवियम के तहत िए-िए प्राथषिा पत् लगाकर एवं प्रारवम्भक जॉच
हेतु गवठत कमेटी की आख्या पर अिावश्यक सूचिा मांग कर जॉच
को ववलवम्बत करिे तथा जॉच में कोई भी साक्ष्य / संतोर्जिक
प्रत्योत्तर / जवाब प्रस्तुत ि करिे का कायष वकया गया है। अपचारी
कमषचारी द्वारा अपिे अन्द्तररम उत्तर वदिांक 07.04.2021 एवं
वदिांक 16.08.2021 में भी मात् पूवष प्रेवर्त वववभन्द्ि प्रपत्ों का
उल्लेख वकया गया है तथा उक्त पत् में भी वकसी भी आरोप के
सम्बन्द्ध में कोई भी तथ्यात्मक साक्ष्य अथवा प्रवतरक्षा हेतु समुवचत
जवाब प्रस्तुत िहीं वकया गया है इससे यह वववदत होता है वक
अपचारी कमषचारी को अपिी प्रवतरक्षा में कहिे हेतु कोई
साक्ष्य/प्रमाण/अवभलेख िहीं है। इस कारण समुवचत जवाब प्रस्तुत ि
कर वववभन्द्ि प्रकार के िये-िये पत् संलग्ि कर जॉच को गुमराह करिे
तथा ववलवम्बत करिे का प्रयास वकया जा रहा है। जॉच में अपचारी
कमषचारी को प्रवतरक्षा हेतु पयाषप्त समय एवं अवसर प्रदाि वकया गया।
जााँच में वांवछत समस्त पत्ावली अवलोवकत करायी गयी एवं उक्त
पत्ाववलयों पर उपलब्ध वांवछत समस्त अवभलेखों की फोटोप्रवत
उपलब्ध करायी गयी इसके बावजूद प्रवतरक्षा में प्रस्तुत जवाब में ऐसा
कोई तथ्य/साक्ष्य / अवभलेख प्रस्तुत िहीं वकया जा सका, वजससे
लगाया गया आरोप खवण्डत/अपुष्ट होता हो, अतः अपचारी
कमषचारी पर आरोवपत समस्त छः आरोप वसि होते हैं।

उपरोक्तािुसार जॉच आख्या सादर प्रेवर्त है।"

5. A copy of inquiry report was
supplied alongwith show cause notice dated
14.09.2021, to which petitioner filed a
detailed reply dated 04.10.2021. The Vice
Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority
vide
order
dated
21.05.2022
passed
punishment order whereby petitioner was
dismissed from service.

6. Aforesaid order, thereafter, was
challenged by way of departmental appeal
and
Commissioner,
Kanpur
Division,
Kanpur vide order dated 15.04.2024 has set
aside punishment order dated 21.05.2022
with certain directions. Relevant part of
order dated 15.04.2024 is reproduced
hereinafter:

"ववभागीय कायषवाही पत्ावली पर उपलब्ध दण्डादेि
वदिांक 21-5-2022 से वववदत होता है वक अपचारी कमषचारी
द्वारा प्रस्तुत वकये गये उक्त ववस्तृत वलवखत अवभकथिों का
तथ्यात्मक ववश्लेर्ण/वववेचिा ि करके दंडादेि में मात् यह उल्लेख
वकया गया है वक "कायाषलय की ररपोटष के अिुसार पूवष में वदये गये
प्रत्युत्तर से कोई अलग तथ्य िहीं वदया गया है। इस प्रकार सभी
आरोप वसि पाये गये है तथा सभी आरोप गम्भीर प्रकृवत के हैं।"
इसी दण्डादेि वदिांक 21-5-2022 में आगे एक स्थाि पर यह
भी उल्लेख वकया है वक "उक्त कारण बताओ िोवटस के उपरान्द्त
अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा अपिा उत्तर प्रस्तुत वकया गया परन्द्तु
अपचारी कमषचारी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत उत्तर में कोई िया तथ्य प्रस्तुत िहीं
वकया गया है बवल्क पूवष में वदये गये उत्तरों को बढा-चढा कर वलखा
गया है।"

अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा जांच कायषवाही के दौराि
विगषत कारण बताओ िोवटस वदिांक 14-9-2021 के क्रम प्रस्तुत
जवाब वदिांक 04-10-2021 के अवलोकि से वववदत होता है
वक अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा ववस्तृत जवाब दावखल वकया गया है
तथा आरोपवार वलवखत उत्तर भी वदया गया है। जैसा वक ऊपर
वववेचिा की जा चुकी है वक जांच अवधकारी द्वारा जांच आख्या
प्रस्तुत करिे के वदिांक 02-9-2021 तक अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा
आरोपवार कोई उत्तर प्रस्तुत िहीं वकया गया था और ि ही जांच
अवधकारी द्वारा कोई वववेचिा की गयी थी। अतः ऐसी वस्थवत में
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अिुिासविक / दण्डि अवधकारी को अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा प्रस्तुत
कारण बताओ िोवटस के वलवखत उत्तर/आरोपवार वलवखत उत्तर
वदिांक 04-10-2821 के क्रम में वववेचिा कर विष्कर्ष विकालिा
चावहए था जबवक आदेि में मात् यह उल्लेख वकया गया है वक पूवष
में प्रस्तुत उत्तर को अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा बढा-चढा कर प्रस्तुत
वकया गया है। यह विष्कर्ष भी उिके द्वारा अपिे वववेक के आधार पर
ि देकर कायाषलय की आख्या के आधार पर वदया गया है। दण्डि
अवधकारी को अवभलेखों का सम्यक परीक्षण करके ही विष्कर्ष
विकालिा चावहए था। अपचारी कमषचारी के विलम्बि अववध में
भुगताि वकये जा चुके जीवि विवाषह भत्ता के अवतररक्त अविेर्
बकाया वेति व भत्ते आवद के सम्बन्द्ध में उ०प्र० सरकारी सेवक
(अिुिासि एवं अपील) वियमावली, 1999 के वियम-5 में
विवहत प्रावधािािुसार "सम्बवन्द्धत सरकारी सेवक के वेति और भत्तों
के बारे में ववविश्चय और उक्त अववध को ड्यूटी पर वबताया गया
मािा जायेगा अथवा िहीं पर ववचार करते हुए उक्त सरकारी सेवक
को िोवटस देकर फाइिेवन्द्ियल हैण्ड बुक, खण्ड दो, भाग-दो से चार
के वियम-54 के अधीि ववविवदष्ट अववध के भीतर स्पष्टीकरण मांगिे
के पश्चात् अिुिासविक अवधकारी द्वारा वकया जायेगा।" चूंवक जांच
अवधकारी द्वारा अपचारी कमषचारी को आरोप का वलवखत उत्तर
प्रस्तुत करिे का पयाषप्त मौका वदया गया था, वकन्द्तु प्रकरण में उक्त
संगत वियमों का पालि िहीं वकया गया है। ऐसी वस्थवत में प्रकरण
प्रत्याववतषत वकये जािे योग्य है। अतः दण्डादेि वदिांक 21-052022 विरस्त वकया जाता है और प्रकरण इस विदेि के साथ
प्रत्याववतषत वकया जाता है वक अिुिासविक अवधकारी/दण्डावधकारी
अपचारी कमषचारी के जवाब वदिांक 04-10-2021 का परीक्षण
कर तथा आरोपवार वववेचिा कर स्वयं के हस्ताक्षर से आदेि पाररत
करें। अिुिासविक/दण्डि अवधकारी आवश्यकतािुसार अपचारी
कमषचारी को व्यवक्तगत सुिवायी का अवसर दे सकते हैं और यवद
वकसी वबन्द्दु पर दोबारा जांच की आवश्यकता समझते हैं, तो जांच
करा सकते हैं।

अपीलकताष के मामले में उ०प्र० सरकारी सेवक
(अिुिासि एवं अपील) वियमावली, 1999 के वियम-4 के उप
वियम-5 में विवहत व्यवस्थािुसार "जैहो वकसी सरकारी सेवक पर
आरोवपत पदच्युवत या सेवा से हटाये जािे की िाररत को इस
वियमावली या इस वियमावली द्वारा ववखवण्डत वियमावली के
अधीि अपील मे पुिववषलोकि में अपास्त कर वदया जाय और मामले
की अग्रतर जांच या कायषवाही के वलए वकसी अन्द्य विदेिों के साथ
प्रेवर्त कर वदया जाय वहााँ उप वियम-5(क) के अिुसार "यवद वह
िावस्त वदये जािे के ठीक पूवष विलम्बि के अधीि था, तो उसके
विलम्बि के आदेि को, उपयुषक्त वकन्द्हीं ऐसे विदेिों के अध्यधीि
रहते हुए, पदच्युवत या हटािे के मूल आदेि के वदिांक को और से,
विरन्द्तर प्रवृत्त हुआ समझा जायेगा।" के दृवष्टगत उक्त प्रावधाि के
अिुरूपं अपचारी कमषचारी को अिुिासविक कायषवाही पूणष वकये
जािे के वदिांक तक विलवम्बत समझा जायेगा।

अपीलकताष पर लगाये गये सभी आरोप गम्भीर
प्रकृवत के हैं और ऐसे गम्भीर आरोपों में जांच प्रवक्रया में संगत
वियमों के अिुसार पालि ि वकये जािे की दिा में भी अपचारी
कमषचारी दोर्ी सावबत होिे के उपरान्द्त भी जांच कायषवाही में
प्रवक्रयात्मक त्ुवट होिे की वजह से उच्च स्तर से उसे लाभ वमल
सकता है। अतः यह आवश्यक है वक अिुिासविक आं
अवधकारी/उपाध्यक्ष, कािपुर ववकास प्रावधकरण, कािपुर जांच
कायषवाही में सुसंगत वियमों का पूणषतः अिुपालि करते हुए ववभागीय
कायषवाही का विस्तारण सुविवश्चत करें।

अतः प्रकरण इस विदेि के साथ प्रेवतप्रेवर्त वकया
जाता है वक अिुिासविक अवधकारी / उपाध्यक्ष, कािपुर ववकास
प्रावधकरण, कािपुर प्रश्नगत ववभागीय कायषवाही में उ०प्र० सरकारी
सेवक (अिुिासि एवं अपील) वियमावली, 1999 के वियम-7
तथा उक्त वियमावली के अिुक्रम कावमषक ववभाग से विगषत
िासिादेि संख्या 1/2015/13/9/98/का-1-2015, वदिांक
22-4-2015 में विवहत प्रवक्रयाओं का पालि करते हुए
अपीलकताष द्वारा प्रस्तुत कारण बताओ िोवटस/आरोप पत् के
आरोपवार वलवखत उत्तर वदिांक 04-10-2021 का
ववश्लेर्ण/वववेचिा कर विष्कर्ष विकालते हुए प्रश्नगत अिुिासविक
कायषवाही में गुण-दोर् के आधार पर सकारण एवं मुखररत आदेि
(Speaking Order) स्वयं के हस्ताक्षर से 01 माह (एक
माह) में पाररत करें।"

7. In pursuance of above order dated
15.04.2024, concerned respondent issued
show cause notice dated 26.04.2024 to
petitioner to submit his reply as well as
fixed 30.04.2024 for personal appearance.
Contents
of
notice
are
reproduced
hereinafter:

"कृपया कािपुर ववकास प्रावधकरण द्वारा जारी आदेि
सं0-194/का०वव०प्रा० / कावमषक /2022-23 वदिांक
21.05.2022 के ववरूि आप द्वारा आयुक्त, कािपुर मण्डल,
कािपुर के समक्ष दावखल अपील में आयुक्त महोदय द्वारा पाररत
आदेि
संख्या-1055/21-133/2022-23
वदिांक
7 All. Kanchan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
447
15.04.2024 के माध्यम से आप द्वारा वियुवक्त प्रावधकारी द्वारा
विगषत कारण बताओं िोवटस के क्रम में प्रस्तुत उत्तर वदिांक
04.10.2021 का ववश्लेर्ण/वववेचिा कर विष्कर्ष विकालते हुए
प्रश्नगत अिुिासविक कायषवाही में गुण-दोर् के आधार पर सकारण
एवं मुखररत आदेि पाररत वकये जािे हेतु आदेवित वकया गया है।

मा० आयुक्त महोदय के उपरोक्त आदेि के कम में
जांच अवधकारी की जांच आख्या सलग्ि कर पुिः इस आिय से
प्रेवर्त की जा रही है वक जांच अवधकारी के विष्कर्ों के क्रम में अन्द्य
कोई अभ्यावेदि प्रस्तुत करिा चाहते है तो अपिा अभ्यावेदि वदिांक
30.04.2024 के पूवष अधोहस्ताक्षरी के कायाषलय में प्रस्तुत कर
सकते हैं तथा यवद व्यवक्तगत सुिवाई एवं साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करिे का
अवसर चाहते है तो वदिांक 30.04.2024 को सायं 04:00
बजे अधोहस्ताक्षरी के कायाषलय में उपवस्थत होकर व्यवक्तगत रूप से
अपिा पक्ष एवं साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत कर सकते हैं।

यवद विधाषररत वतवथ के पूवष आपका अन्द्य कोई
अभ्यावेदि प्राप्त िहीं होता है तथा विधाषररत वतवथ व समय पर आप
उपवस्थत िहीं होते है तो यह समझा जायेगा वक आपको अन्द्य कोई
अभ्यावेदि प्रस्तुत िहीं करिा है तथा आप व्यवक्तगत सुिवाई एवं
साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करिे का अवसर िहीं चाहते हैं, वजसके वलये आप
स्वयं उत्तर दायी होगें।"

8. Petitioner appeared on 30.04.2024
and filed his written objections. Concerned
respondent after considering reply of
petitioner, passed impugned order dated
21.06.2024 whereby again petitioner was
terminated from service and it was held that
Kanpur
Development
Authority
has
suffered loss of Rs. 600 lacs. Relevant part
of
impugned
order
is
mentioned
hereinafter:

"8.7 उपरोक्तािुसार परीक्षण से स्पष्ट रूप से
स्थावपत एवं वसि होता है वक श्री कंचि गुप्ता, प्रथम श्रेणी वलवपक
(विलवम्बत) अपिे कतषव्यों का विवषहि सत्यविष्ठा एवं ईमािदारी से
करिे में सवषथा असफल रहे हैं। इिके द्वारा अपिे पदीय दावयत्वों के
ववपरीत कािपुर ववकास प्रावधकरण के साथ ववश्वासघात करते हुये
कुटरवचत एवं फजी अवभलेखों के आधार पर, वबिा वकसी वैधाविक
आवंटि के एवं वबिा भूखण्डों का मूल्य जमा कराये कवतपय
व्यवतत्तयों के पक्ष में प्रावधकरण के 06 मूल्यवाि भूखण्डों वजिका
ववत्तीय वर्ष 2019-20 की प्रावधकरण दर से कुल मूल्य रु0
600.32 लाख था, का फ्री होल्ड ववलेख विष्पावदत कराये जािे
के दोर्ी हैं। कूटरवचत प्रपत्ों के आधार पर विष्पावदत फ्री होल्ड
ववलेखों तथा प्रावधकरण को हुई उपरोक्तािुसार करोडों की क्षवत में
इिकी संवलप्तता स्पष्ट रूप से प्रमावणत होती है। ऐसी वस्थवत में श्री
कंचि गुप्ता, प्रथम श्रेणी वलवपक (विलवम्बत) कािपुर ववकास
प्रावधकरण की सेवा में बिे रहिे योग्य िहीं है।

8. अतः उक्त के आलोक में अपचारी कमषचारी श्री
कंचि गुप्ता पर वसि पाये गये आरोपों के दृवष्टगत उ०प्र० सरकारी
सेवक (अिुिासि एवं अपील) वियमावली 1999 के वियम-3 की
प्राववधावित व्यवस्थाओं के आलोक में सम्यक् ववचारोपरान्द्त
अपचारी कमषचारी श्री कंचि गुप्ता, प्रथम श्रेणी वलवपक, कािपुर
ववकास प्रावधकरण, कािपुर (विलंवम्बत) को एतद्वारा "सेवाच्युत"
(वडसवमिल) वकये जािे का वृहद् दण्ड अवधरोवपत करते हुये
ववभागीय कायषवाही समाप्त की जाती है।

उपरोक्त भूखण्डों का कूटरवचत प्रपत्ों के आधार पर
वकये गये ववक्रय से प्रावधकरण को हुई क्षवत अपचारी कमषचारी से
समािुपावतक रूप से वसूली वकये जािे हेतु वियमािुसार कायषवाही
सम्पावदत की जाये। श्री कंचि गुप्ता को विलम्बि अववध में जीवि
विवाषह भत्ते के अवतररक्त अन्द्य कोई वेति एवं भत्ते आवद का भुगताि
िहीं वकया जायेगा।"

9. Aforesaid order was not challenged
before Appellate Authority and instead
petitioner has filed present writ petition
impugning aforesaid order.

10. During arguments this Court has
specifically asked from Sri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for
petitioner that, whether petitioner wants to
file an appeal against impugned order, to
which on basis of instructions, learned
Senior Advocate as well as his assisting
counsel has specifically denied and prays
that writ petition be decided on merit.

11. Learned Senior Advocate for
petitioner submitted that in first round of
litigation the Appellate Authority has set
aside punishment order with specific
observations that inquiry has to be
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
commenced de novo, petitioner ought to
have been provided all documents so that a
detailed reply can be submitted as well as
an opportunity of oral hearing be provided.
However, no witness was examined and in
a very cursory manner, impugned order
was passed.

12. Learned Senior Advocate for
petitioner
further
submitted
that
the
Disciplinary Authority has again proceeded
on basis of report of a Committee without
applying independent mind and without
any material that petitioner has committed
any
act
of
embezzlement,
a
major
punishment was awarded. There is no
material
on
record
that
Kanpur
Development Authority has suffered loss of
about Rs. 600 lacs. Learned Senior
Advocate referred a judgment passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Kaptan
Singh vs. State of U.P. and another,
2014:AHC:95008-DB
and
vehemently
referred following part of said judgment:

"We are unable to accept the
contention of the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel. Even if the delinquent
employee does not request for personal
hearing the burden of proving the charges
normally being upon the department, the enquiry
officer was under obligation to fix a date for such
enquiry, with information to the delinquent and to
conduct enquiry wherein he was required to
examine documentary as well as oral evidence, if
any, in support of the charges. Even if the delinquent
employee did not participate in the enquiry, the
enquiry officer was duty bound to discharge his
obligation as an enquiry officer of ascertaining the
truth in respect of the charges levelled against him,
on the basis of evidence, as to whether the same are
proved against him or not.

Even if the delinquent does not demand
personal hearing or does not give the names of
witnesses with brief synopsis of points on which he
wishes to examine or cross-examine the witnesses,
the Inquiry Officer is not absolved from fixing a date
of enquiry, with intimation to the delinquent and if he
does not appear on the date fixed to either adjourn
the enquiry to some other date or to proceed exparte,
as he deems fit. In either eventuality, he is required to
hold inquiry, if delinquent is present, in his presence,
if he is absent, exparte. If oral evidence is referred in
the charge-sheet, same is required to be
recorded/examined,
if
not,
even
then
the
documentary evidence is required to be examined in
the light of the charges for ascertaining the truth in
respect thereof. The delinquent is also entitled to be
intimated the date for oral enquiry, wherein the
Inquiry Officer should confront the delinquent with
the charges and the evidence in support thereof, put
relevant queries to him, elicit and record his
replies/response in respect thereof. Such oral enquiry
is necessary as it gives an opportunity, to the
delinquent to explain his conduct and to the Inquiry
Officer to have a better perspective of the
controversy, as, it is not always possible to discern
the truth from written replies and documents which
may not necessarily convey the complete truth. Even
where the delinquent does not dispute the veracity of
the documentary evidence, oral enquiry is necessary
as he may still have an explanation to offer."

13. Per contra, Sri Amrendra Nath Singh,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
P.K.
Tripathi,
learned
counsel
for
Respondents-Kanpur
Development
Authority, submitted that in pursuance of
direction passed by Appellate Authority
vide
order
dated
15.04.2024,
the
Disciplinary Authority sought reply of
petitioner and also granted opportunity to
appear in person and on basis of material
available as well as earlier reply dated
04.10.2021 he proceeded and on basis of
record, the allegations against petitioner
were found proved. It was also proved that
Kanpur
Development
Authority
has
suffered loss of Rs. 600 lacs. Learned
7 All. Kanchan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
449
Senior Advocate also referred that there
was an alternative remedy, however,
petitioner has directly rushed this Court.

14. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the material available
on record.

15. It is well settled that in normal
circumstances, Courts are slow in causing
interference in the orders passed in
departmental proceedings. For reference
relevant part of a judgment passed by
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1908 is mentioned
hereinafter:

"23.The scope of examination
and interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Constitution') in a case of the
present nature, is no longer res integra. In
State of Andhra Pradesh v.S Sree Rama
Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a 3-Judge Bench
stated:

'7.... The High Court is not
constituted in a proceeding under Article
226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal
over the decision of the authorities holding
a departmental enquiry against a public
servant:it is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and according to
the procedure prescribed in that behalf,
and whether the rules of natural justice are
not violated. Where there is some evidence,
which the authority entrusted with the duty
to hold the enquiry has accepted and which
evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is
guilty of the charge, it is not the function of
the High Court in a petition for a writ
under Article 226 to review the evidence
and to arrive at an independent finding on
the evidence. The High Court may
undoubtedly
interfere
where
the
departmental authorities have held the
proceedings against the delinquent in a
manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode of
enquiry or where the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair
decision
by
some
considerations
extraneous to the evidence and the merits
of the case or by allowing themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant considerations or
where the conclusion on the very face of it
is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could ever have
arrived at that conclusion, or on similar
grounds. But the departmental authorities
are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly
held, the sole judges of facts and if there be
some legal evidence on which their findings
can be based, the adequacy or reliability of
that evidence is not a matter which can be
permitted to be canvassed before the High
Court in a proceeding for a writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution.'

24. The above was reiterated by a
Bench of equal strength in State Bank of
India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar, (2011) 10 SCC
249. Three learned Judges of this Court
stated as under in State of Andhra Pradesh
v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557:

'21. The scope of Article 226 in
dealing with departmental inquiries has
come
up
before
this
Court.
Two
propositions were laid down by this Court
in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR
1963 SC 1723:(1964) 3 SCR 25:(1964) 2
LLJ 150]. First, there is no warrant for the
view that in considering whether a public
officer is guilty of misconduct charged
against him, the rule followed in criminal
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
trials that an offence is not established
unless
proved
by
evidence
beyond
reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the
Court must be applied. If that rule be not
applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry
the High Court in a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution is not competent to
declare the order of the authorities holding
a departmental enquiry invalid. The High
Court is not a court of appeal under Article
226 over the decision of the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry against a
public servant. The Court is concerned to
determine whether the enquiry is held by an
authority competent in that behalf and
according to the procedure prescribed in
that behalf, and whether the rules of
natural justice are not violated. Second,
where there is some evidence which the
authority entrusted with the duty to hold the
enquiry has accepted and which evidence
may reasonably support the conclusion that
the delinquent officer is guilty of the
charge, it is not the function of the High
Court to review the evidence and to arrive
at an independent finding on the evidence.
The High Court may interfere where the
departmental authorities have held the
proceedings against the delinquent in a
manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode of
enquiry or where the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair
decision
by
some
considerations
extraneous to the evidence and the merits
of the case or by allowing themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant considerations or
where the conclusion on the very face of it
is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could ever have
arrived
at
that
conclusion.
The
departmental authorities are, if the enquiry
is otherwise properly held, the sole judges
of facts and if there is some legal evidence
on which their findings can be based, the
adequacy or reliability of that evidence is
not a matter which can be permitted to be
canvassed before the High Court in a
proceeding for a writ under Article 226.

xxx

25. In State Bank of India v. S.K.
Sharma,(1996) 3 SCC 364, two learned
Judges of this Court held:

'28. The decisions cited above
make one thing clear, viz., principles of
natural justice cannot be reduced to any
hard and fast formulae. As said in Russell
v. Duke of Norfolk [[1949] 1 All ER 109 :
65 TLR 225] way back in 1949, these
principles cannot be put in a strait-jacket.
Their applicability depends upon the
context and the facts and circumstances of
each case. (See Mohinder Singh Gill v.
Chief Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405
: (1978) 2 SCR 272]) The objective is to
ensure a fair hearing, a fair deal, to the
person whose rights are going to be
affected. (See A.K. Roy v. Union of India
[(1982) 1 SCC 271:1982 SCC (Cri) 152]
and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of
India [(1981) 1 SCC 664].) As pointed out
by this Court in A.K. Kraipakv. Union of
India [(1969) 2 SCC 262], the dividing line
between
quasi-judicial
function
and
administrative function (affecting the rights
of a party) has become quite thin and
almost indistinguishable - a fact also
emphasised by House of Lords in Council
of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the
Civil Service [[1984] 3 All ER 935 : [1984]
3 WLR 1174 : [1985] A.C. 374, HL] where
the principles of natural justice and a fair
hearing were treated as synonymous.
Whichever the case, it is from the
standpoint of fair hearing - applying the
test of prejudice, as it may be called - that
7 All. Kanchan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
451
any and every complaint of violation of the
rule of audi alteram partem should be
examined. Indeed, there may be situations
where observance of the requirement of
prior notice/hearing may defeat the very
proceeding - which may result in grave
prejudice to public interest. It is for this
reason that the rule of post-decisional
hearing as a sufficient compliance with
natural justice was evolved in some of the
cases, e.g., Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of
India [(1984) 3 SCC 465]. There may also
be cases where the public interest or the
interests of the security of State or other
similar
considerations
may
make
it
inadvisable to observe the rule of audi
alteram partem altogether [as in the case
of situations contemplated by clauses (b)
and (c) of the proviso to Article 311(2)] or
to disclose the material on which a
particular action is being taken. There may
indeed be any number of varying situations
which it is not possible for anyone to
foresee. In our respectful opinion, the
principles emerging from the decided cases
can be stated in the following terms in
relation to the disciplinary orders and
enquiries : a distinction ought to be made
between violation of the principle of
natural justice, audi alteram partem, as
such and violation of a facet of the said
principle. In other words, distinction is
between "no notice"/"no hearing" and
"no adequate hearing" or to put it in
different words, "no opportunity" and "no
adequate opportunity". To illustrate -
take a case where the person is dismissed
from
service
without
hearing
him
altogether (as in Ridge v. Baldwin [[1964]
A.C. 40 : [1963] 2 All ER 66 : [1963] 2
WLR 935]). It would be a case falling
under the first category and the order of
dismissal would be invalid - or void, if
one chooses to use that expression (Calvin
v. Carr [[1980] A.C. 574 : [1979] 2 All ER
440 : [1979] 2 WLR 755, PC]). But where
the person is dismissed from service, say,
without supplying him a copy of the enquiry
officer's report (Managing Director, ECIL
v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993
SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704]) or
without affording him a due opportunity of
cross-examining a witness (K.L. Tripathi
[(1984) 1 SCC 43 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 62]) it
would be a case falling in the latter
category - violation of a facet of the said
rule of natural justice - in which case, the
validity of the order has to be tested on the
touchstone of prejudice, i.e., whether, all in
all, the person concerned did or did not
have a fair hearing. It would not be correct
- in the light of the above decisions to say
that for any and every violation of a facet
of natural justice or of a rule incorporating
such facet, the order passed is altogether
void and ought to be set aside without
further enquiry. In our opinion, the
approach and test adopted in B. Karunakar
[(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184
: (1993) 25 ATC 704] should govern all
cases where the complaint is not that there
was no hearing (no notice, no opportunity
and no hearing) but one of not affording a
proper hearing (i.e., adequate or a full
hearing) or of violation of a procedural
rule or requirement governing the enquiry;
the complaint should be examined on the
touchstone of prejudice as aforesaid."

16. In the present case, there were very
serious charges against petitioner that in the
garb of preparing duplicate papers, by
cheating
and
forgery,
he
prepared
documents in favour of third parties and
executed sale deeds in as many as six
matters, which has caused financial loss of
about Rs. 600 lacs.

17. In earlier round of litigation,
Appellate Authority has set aside order of
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissal and matter was remitted back
with a specific direction that Disciplinary
Authority will consider the earlier reply
dated 04.10.2021 and pass a speaking order
on merit.

18.
It
is
not
in
dispute
that
subsequently a notice was issued by
Disciplinary Authority inviting reply from
petitioner as well as he was asked to appear
before Disciplinary Authority. On basis of
record it is also clear that petitioner has
filed reply as well as he has appeared
before Disciplinary Authority and during
inquiry
petitioner
has
endorsed
on
29.06.2021 that he has received all relevant
documents. Therefore, an argument that
petitioner was not provided all relevant
documents, is contrary to record. Petitioner
has submitted his reply dated 30.04.2024
and has appeared on same date and made a
specific endorsement and he was satisfied
with procedure. For reference contents of
endorsement are reproduced hereinafter:

"आज वदिांक 30.04.24 को उपाध्यक्ष महोदय
के समक्ष सुिवाई हेतु उपवस्थत हुआ। प्राथी द्वारा पूवष में वदए गए
आरोपवार जवाब वदिांक 4.10.21 एवं अभ्यावेदि वदिांक
30.4.24 द्वारा समस्त तथ्यों एवं साक्ष्यों सवहत प्रस्तुत कर वदए गए
हैं। प्राथी अब सुिवाई िहीं चाहता है उपरोक्त ववणषत अभ्यावेदिों के
आधार पर कृपया न्द्यायोवचत आदेि पाररत करिे की कृपा करें। "

19. Therefore, the Court is of the
opinion that direction passed by Appellate
Authority was complied with and followed
in its letter and spirit and petitioner was
provided full opportunity to place his case.

20. The argument of learned Senior
Advocate for petitioner that Appellate
Authority has directed for de novo inquiry
is contrary to record since as referred above
it was a direction to Disciplinary Authority
to decide case considering earlier reply
filed by petitioner whereas the Disciplinary
Authority has provided a fresh opportunity
to petitioner to submit reply as well as
asked the petitioner to appear in person and
from the contents of endorsement of
petitioner, as referred above, there is no
doubt that not only principles of natural
justice were followed but directions of
Appellate Authority were also completely
followed.

21. I have also carefully perused the
impugned order, which is a very detailed
order. Reply to each charge on basis of
material was considered in detail and only
thereafter it was concluded that petitioner
has prepared forged documents in favour of
persons, who were neither actual allottees
nor
have
deposited
money
towards
registration and, therefore, petitioner has
caused a huge financial loss to Kanpur
Development Authority.

22. An argument that impugned order
was passed only on basis of report of
Committee is also contrary to record since
it was passed not only on basis of
Committee's report but documents placed
in support of charges as well as the reply
submitted by petitioner during earlier
inquiry as well as submitted after the order
was passed by Appellate Authority. For
reference the relevant findings returned
with regard to each charges are reproduced
hereinafter:

Charge No. 1

"उपरोक्त कथि स्वीकार िहीं है। वस्तुवस्थवत यह है
वक रेफरेन्द्स रवजस्टर िाम का कोई भी रवजस्टर प्रावधकरण में
संचावलत िहीं होता है। अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा वजस रवजस्टर को
मात् रेफरेन्द्स रवजस्टर कहा जा रहा है, उसमें वर्ष 2005 के काफी
वर्ष पूवष की entries है। यह रवजस्टर काफी पहले से है जो विवश्चत
रूप से इिको पूवष वलवपक द्वारा हस्तगत वकया गया होगा। यवद
7 All. Kanchan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
453
अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा प्रावधकरण के प्रवत सही विष्ठा व वियत से
कायष वकया गया होता तो डुप्लीकेट पत्ावली खोले जािे से पूवष यह
ववचार अवश्य वकया गया होता वक इस भूखण्ड के समक्ष श्री सती
प्रसाद वदिांक 04.08.1990 तयों अंवकत है तथा श्रीमती ववद्या
देवी का िाम अंवकत तयों िहीं है। यवद अपचारी कमषचारी को पक्ष
द्वारा प्रस्तुत कूटरवचत प्रपत् सही प्रतीत हो रहे थे तो भी इस रवजस्टर
में श्रीमती ववद्या देवी के िाम की इन्द्री ि होिे के कारण अन्द्य वकसी
अवभलेख में प्रश्नगत भूखण्ड के समक्ष अंकि को देखा जािा चावहए
था अथवा अपिे उच्चावधकारी को इस सम्बन्द्ध में अवगत कराते हुये
उिसे स्पष्ट मागषदिषि प्राप्त वकया जािा चावहए था वकन्द्तु अपचारी
कमषचारी द्वारा उपरोक्त में से कोई कायषवाही िहीं की गई एवं पक्ष
द्वारा प्रस्तुत अवभलेखों को ही सत्य मािते हुये ववक्रय ववभाग के
अवभलेखों से वबिा वकसी आवंटि सत्यापि के पत्ावली अग्रसाररत
कर दी गई। श्री कंचि गुप्ता द्वारा सवमवत के मन्द्तव्य को
कल्पिािीलता से परे बताया गया है, जबवक उपरोक्त ववणषत तथ्यों
से स्पष्ट है वक सवमवत एवं जांच अवधकारी का कथि कल्पिािीलता
से परे ि होकर श्री गुप्ता द्वारा अपिे गलत कृत्यों को सही ठहरािे हेतु
कल्पिािीलता से युक्त रेफरेन्द्स रवजस्टर आवद से सम्बवन्द्धत उत्तर
वदया गया है।"

Charge No. 2

"उपरोक्त आदेि के अिुसार, वपटीििर के प्रत्यावेदि
को respondent no. 1 अथाषत उपाध्यक्ष द्वारा विस्ताररत
वकया जािा था, जबवक अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा प्रस्तुत छायाप्रवत के
अिुसार इिके द्वारा जोिल स्तर से ही विबन्द्धि कायषवाही सम्पावदत
करा दी गयी, उपाध्यक्ष के समक्ष विणषयाथष पत्ावली प्रेवर्त वकये जािे
हेतु आख्या प्रस्तुत ही िहीं की गयी। अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा पहले
प्रत्यावेदि के विस्तारण हेतु आख्या प्रस्तुत की जािी चावहए थी वकन्द्तु
मा० उच्च न्द्यायालय के आदेि की उपेक्षा करते हुये ववक्रय पत् विष्पादि
हेतु आख्या प्रस्तुत कर दी गयी, जो मा० उच्च न्द्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के
उपरोक्त आदेि की अवमाििा के समाि है। उपरोक्त तथ्य से ही अपचारी
कमषचारी की विष्ठा संवदग्ध हो जाती है।"

Charge No. 3

"उपरोक्त दोिों अलग-अलग अवधकाररयों की सवमवतयों
द्वारा प्रश्नगत जांच से सम्बवन्द्धत भूखण्डों से इतर भूखण्डों के कूटरवचत
विबन्द्धि में श्री कंचि गुप्ता, अपचारी कमषचारी को दोर्ी मािते हुये
एफ०आई०आर० दजष करािे की संस्तुवत की गयी। जांच हेतु वववभन्द्ि
स्तरों पर गवठत समस्त सवमवतयों को पूवाषग्रह से ग्रवसत िहीं मािा जा
सकता है। स्पष्ट है वक श्री गुप्ता का यह कथि वक वास्तववक रूप से प्राथी
को कभी भी फजी विबन्द्धि हेतु दोर् वसि िहीं वकया गया है व सवमवत
द्वारा उक्त कथि कदावचत अवतरंजिा एवं पूवाषग्रह से ग्रवसत होकर वलखा
गया है, पूणषतया भ्रामक एवं वररष्ठ अवधकाररयों पर की गयी गम्भीर
वटप्पणी है।"

Charge No. 4

"अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा स्वयं यह वलखा गया है वक मूल
अवभलेख पक्ष अवलोवकत कराता है, ि वक कायाषलय में हमेिा के वलये
जमा कर देता है, जबवक प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में मूल अवभलेख कायाषलय में
जमा है। इससे भी इि अवभलेखों की कूटरवचता वसि होती है एवं
अपचारी कमषचारी का कथि गलत वसि होता है।"

Charge No. 5