# Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 72
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-08
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4825 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manjeet-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54545
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Contrary to provisions -
Certiorari - Quashing of entire departmental
proceedings - Principles of natural justice -
Impugned order challenged, in absence of legal
formality petitioner was asked to appear before
disciplinary authority for personal hearing and
submit his explanation to inquiry report - Held,
for conducting departmental inquiry, proper
opportunity of hearing should be afforded to an
delinquent employee - Copy of demanded
documents / relevant / relied upon documents
should be provided to him / her so that proper
defense reply could be filed before inquiry
officer - Oral inquiry is mandatory if charges are
serious , if charges are proved, incumbent may
be awarded major punishment - For conducting
oral inquiry, date, time and place should be
fixed - Inquiry report should be submitted
before
disciplinary
authority
-
Disciplinary
7 All. Manjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
73
authority should provide copy of inquiry report
to employee seeking explanation by providing
an opportunity of hearing - Then, disciplinary
authority may conclude departmental inquiry
finally - Procedure has not been followed by
inquiry officer nor by disciplinary authority as he
has not verified fact as to whether inquiry officer
has conducted inquiry in accordance with law or
not - Matter remanded back to conclude inquiry
by affording an opportunity of personal hearing
and to examine witnesses. (Para 3, 11, 14)

Allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30.10.2021
on
a
fixed
honorarium.
Paragraph 10 (vii) of the Government
Order dated 25.07.2021 clearly indicates
that such contractual services would be for
a period of one year only whereafter it shall
be discretion of the Gaon Sabha to extend
the
contractual
services
in
case
of
satisfactory work but only subject to a
maximum period of two years.

7. Once it is admitted by the
petitioner that he was appointed on
30.10.2021, then in terms of paragraph 10
(vii) of the aforesaid Government Order
dated 25.07.2021, such contractual services
were only for a period of one year subject to
continuation in terms of resolution of the
Gaon Sabha. In such circumstances, it is clear
that petitioner's contractual service came to
an end by efflux of time on 30.10.2021and
vide resolution dated 04.11.2022, Gaon
Sabha declined to extend the period of
contract merely indicating the fact that all the
members declined to extend contractual
services
of
petitioner.
The
impugned
resolution has thereafter been approved on
30.04.2024 by the District Panchayat Raj
Officer. It is quite evident that there is no
discussion with regard satisfactory or dissatisfactory service of petitioner.

8. In the considered opinion of this
Court, conditions indicated in paragraph 10
of Government Order dated 25.07.2021
would be inapplicable in the present facts and
circumstances where the contractual period
has ended by efflux of time. The said
paragraph 16 of the Government Order
would in fact the applicable only in cases
where services of the contractual employee
are being dispensed with mid term, which is
not the present case.

9. In view of aforesaid, since
condition enumerated in paragraph 16 of
the Government Order dated 25.07.2021
are inapplicable and there does not appear
to be any right vested in the petitioner for
continuation of contractual period, the
petition fails and is dismissed at the
admission stage itself. Parties to bear their
own costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 72
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 4825 of 2024

Manjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Raj, Rishabh Raj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Aditya Mohan, Naresh Chandra

Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Contrary to provisions -
Certiorari - Quashing of entire departmental
proceedings - Principles of natural justice -
Impugned order challenged, in absence of legal
formality petitioner was asked to appear before
disciplinary authority for personal hearing and
submit his explanation to inquiry report - Held,
for conducting departmental inquiry, proper
opportunity of hearing should be afforded to an
delinquent employee - Copy of demanded
documents / relevant / relied upon documents
should be provided to him / her so that proper
defense reply could be filed before inquiry
officer - Oral inquiry is mandatory if charges are
serious , if charges are proved, incumbent may
be awarded major punishment - For conducting
oral inquiry, date, time and place should be
fixed - Inquiry report should be submitted
before
disciplinary
authority
-
Disciplinary
7 All. Manjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
73
authority should provide copy of inquiry report
to employee seeking explanation by providing
an opportunity of hearing - Then, disciplinary
authority may conclude departmental inquiry
finally - Procedure has not been followed by
inquiry officer nor by disciplinary authority as he
has not verified fact as to whether inquiry officer
has conducted inquiry in accordance with law or
not - Matter remanded back to conclude inquiry
by affording an opportunity of personal hearing
and to examine witnesses. (Para 3, 11, 14)

Allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. State of U.P. & ors. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha,
(2010) 2 SCC 772

2. The St. of U. P. & ors. Vs Rajit Singh, (2022)
15 SCC 254

3.
United
Bank
of
India
Vs
Biswanath
Bhattacharjee, (2022) 13 SCC 329

4. State of U.P. Vs State Public Service Tribunal
and others (2022) 3 UPLBEC 1865

5. Union of India Vs P Gunasekaran, (2015) 2
SCC 610

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Raj, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir
Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for
the State and Sri Aditya Mohan, learned
counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 5.

2. By means of this petition the
petitioner has prayed following relief :

 "i. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 15.06.2024, passed
by the opposite party no. 4/Additional
Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow,
contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ
petition.
 ii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned inquiry report dated 06.06.2024,
submitted by the opposite party no.
5/Inquiry
Officer
/
Deputy
Director
(Administration/Marketing), Rajya Krishi
Utapadan
Mandi
Parishad,
Kanpur,
contained in ANNEXURE No.2 to this writ
petition.
 iii. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing
the
entire
departmental
proceeding initiated against the petitioner
by the opposite party no.4 vide its order
dated 14.09.2023 as they were conducted
contrary to provisions contained In the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and
the principles of natural justice.

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the opposite parties not to give effect to the
operation and implementation of the
impugned order dated 15.06.2024, passed
by the opposite party no.4/Additional
Director, Rajya Krishi Utapadan Mandi
Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the
impugned inquiry report dated 06.06.2024,
submitted
by
the
opposite
party
no.5/Inquiry
Officer/Deputy
Director
(Administration/Marketing), Rajya Krishi
Utapadan
Mandi
Parishad,
Kanpur,
contained in Annexure Nos.1 and 2
respectively to this writ petition.

3. The precise contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
before passing the impugned order dated
15.6.2024 by the disciplinary authority the
relevant aspect has not been verified as to
whether during the course of departmental
inquiry the petitioner has been afforded the
opportunity
of
hearing
strictly
in
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with law and as to whether he
has been supplied all important and relied
upon
documents
which
have
been
demanded by the petitioner time and again.
The disciplinary authority has also not
examined the relevant fact that under
compelling circumstances the petitioner
submitted his tentative defense reply
indicating therein that he has not been
provided the demanded documents but if
the inquiry officer is willing to conclude
the
inquiry
without
affording
an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
without
supplying
the
demanded
documents at least he should have given an
opportunity of personal hearing and the
opportunity to examine some witnesses
whose names have been categorically
indicated in para 11 of the tentative defense
reply of the petitioner dated 6.6.2024
(Annexure
no. 13). The
disciplinary
authority has also not perused the relevant
document which has been enclosed as
Annexure no. 2 which is the findings of the
inquiry officer dated 6.6.2024 in the light
of the fact that on 6.6.2024 the petitioner
submitted his tentative defense reply and
on the same date the inquiry officer has
submitted his inquiry report before the
disciplinary authority ignoring the specific
and categorical demand of the petitioner to
supply the documents and to provide the
opportunity of hearing and opportunity to
examine the witnesses. In the absence of
aforesaid legal formality which is in
conformity with the principles of natural
justice the impugned order dated 15.6.2024
has been issued by the disciplinary
authority to the petitioner saying him to
appear before him for personal hearing and
to submit his explanation to the inquiry
report.

4. Sri Ram Raj has submitted that
if the entire departmental inquiry including
the findings are farce and an eye-wash and
the same has been completed without
following the basic tenets and requirements
to conduct and conclude the departmental
inquiry as to what sort of personal hearing
has been given by the disciplinary authority
and this fact makes it crystal clear that both
the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary
authority are adamant to punish the
petitioner without following the due
procedure of law.

5. On being confronted the learned
counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 on
the aforesaid submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner, he tried to justify the
aforesaid impugned order by saying that
the
disciplinary
authority
has
given
opportunity of personal hearing then
whatever grievance the petitioner is having
may be submitted before the disciplinary
authority and may submit the explanation
and before taking any decision the
disciplinary authority may look into this
aspect.

6. Learned State Counsel has
stated that at this stage the matter is
between the petitioner and opposite party
no. 2 to 5, therefore, he has no locus to say
anything.

7. On being confronted the learned
counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 5
on the point that when the petitioner has,
admittedly,
not
been
provided
the
demanded documents and he has not been
afforded an opportunity of personal hearing
by the inquiry officer and he has not been
given opportunity to examine the witnesses
whose specific name and post has been
indicated in his tentative defense reply as to
how any charge can be proved against the
petitioner and also as to how the
disciplinary
authority
may
take
any
7 All. Manjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
75
appropriate
decision
finalizing
the
departmental
inquiry,
no
proper
explanation can be given.

8. Sri Ram Raj, in support of his
aforesaid contention, has placed reliance on
the judgments of Apex Court in re: (2010)
2 SCC 772: State of U.P. and others vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2022) 15 SCC 254 :
The State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs.
Rajit Singh, (2022) 13 SCC 329 : United
Bank
of
India
vs.
Biswanath
Bhattacharjee, (2022) 3 UPLBEC 1865 :
State of U.P. vs. State Public Service
Tribunal and others and (2015) 2 SCC
610 : Union of India vs. P Gunasekaran,
more particularly Saroj Kumar Sinha
(supra) whereby the Apex Court has
explained the manner under which the
departmental inquiry is conducted and
concluded and also as to how the
disciplinary authority may pass appropriate
order
finalizing
the
departmental
proceedings.

9. I have perused the judgments of
Apex Court and I find that the guidelines
and directions, so issued by the Apex Court
time and again, particularly in re: Saroj
Kumar Sinha (supra) has not been
followed in the present case.

10. At this stage learned counsel
for the opposite parties no. 2 to. 5 has
stated that if this Hon'ble Court may find it
appropriate to interfere in the aforesaid
impugned
orders
may
provide
an
opportunity
to
department
to
pass
appropriate order strictly in accordance
with law and for the reason that serious
allegations have been levelled against the
petitioner for which he may not left scotfree.

11. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material
available on record, I am of the considered
opinion
that
while
conducting
the
departmental inquiry against an employee
the proper opportunity of hearing should be
afforded to him at particular stages. The
copy of the demanded documents / the
relevant / relied upon documents should be
provided to him / her so that proper defense
reply could be filed before the inquiry
officer. After receiving the defense reply
the oral inquiry is mandatory if the charges
are serious and the department is of the
view that if those charges are proved the
incumbent
may
be
awarded
major
punishment. For conducting the oral
inquiry the date, time and place should be
fixed. Thereafter the inquiry report should
be
submitted
before
the
disciplinary
authority. The disciplinary authority should
provide the copy of inquiry report to the
incumbent / delinquent employee seeking
explanation from him by providing an
opportunity of personal hearing. After
following the aforesaid procedure of law
the disciplinary authority may conclude the
departmental inquiry finally.

12. In the present case what I find
is that the aforesaid procedure has not been
followed by the inquiry officer nor by the
disciplinary authority as he has not verified
the fact as to whether the inquiry officer
has conducted the inquiry strictly in
accordance with law or not.

13. Therefore, I hereby quash the
impugned order dated 15.6.2024 (Annexure
no. 1), passed by the opposite party no. 4
and the inquiry report dated 6.6.2024
(Annexure no. 2) submitted by the opposite
party no. 5.
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. The issue is remanded back to
the inquiry officer to conduct and conclude
the
departmental
inquiry
strictly
in
accordance with law by affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
to supply the copy of the demanded
documents and also to provide him an
opportunity to examine the witnesses
whose names have been indicted in para 11
of the defense reply dated 6.6.2024. The
aforesaid departmental inquiry may be
conducted and concluded with expedition
as the departmental inquiry may not be kept
pending against the petitioner for unlimited
period but it should be concluded within a
reasonable
time.
Thereafter,
the
disciplinary
authority
may
pass
an
appropriate
order
by
affording
an
opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner
seeking
his
explanation
providing him copy of inquiry report, if any
and after considering the explanation of the
petitioner the disciplinary authority may
pass
final
order
concluding
the
departmental inquiry finally. For doing the
aforesaid entire exercise no unnecessary
time may be consumed by both the
authorities i.e the inquiry officer and the
disciplinary authority.

15. It is made clear that while
conducting
and
concluding
the
departmental inquiry the inquiry officer
may
not
be
influenced
from
any
observation of this Court inasmuch these
observations are limited to the extent that
the inquiry officer has not conducted or
concluded the inquiry strictly in accordance
with law, therefore, while conducting and
concluding the departmental inquiry the
inquiry officer shall conclude the same
independently without being influenced
from any observation made in this order. At
the same time the disciplinary authority
may pass a final order without being
influenced from any observation made by
this Court.

16. In view of the aforesaid, the
writ petition is allowed on the aforesaid
limited points.

17. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 76
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 4833 of 2024

Harish Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shailesh Mani Tripathi, Shriprakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Krishna Mohan Asthana

Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 226 - Petitioner challenged
impugned order, by which competent
authority of bank rejecting claim of
petitioner for compassionate appointment
only on the ground that his financial
condition was satisfactory - Held, while
passing the order denying a claim means
that right at least a substantive right
which as per bank own policy vests in
dependents of deceased - Well reasoned
order
should
have
been
passed
-
Consideration should be objective enough
so as to apprise aggrieved party about
valid reasons for denial of claim for
compassionate appointment - Law is well
settled, no amount of defence taken in
reply or pleading can substitute lacuna as
to reasoning in the order if the order is
cryptic - Impugned order quashed by