# Munni Lal Patel v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 1065
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-22
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11008 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munni-lal-patel-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53709
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Whether the order of the punishment is
sustainable when the enquiry is in violation of
the procedure prescribed?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999: Rule
7 - When a thing is required to be done in
a particular manner then that thing should
be done in that manner alone. The inquiry
being de hors the Rules, is flawed one and
is deserved to be quashed. (Para 14, 15)

Since the procedure prescribed u/Rule 7 of
the 1999 rules makes it mandatory for the
inquiry officer to conduct oral inquiry, the
inquiry officer was hidebound in law to hold
oral inquiry unless and until he had recorded
that it was for certain reasons that he could
not summon the witnesses. The inquiry
officer failed to even call the charged officer
to give his oral evidence for which a specific
prayer
was
made
in
the
reply.
The
documents examined by the inquiry officer
may not be sufficient to prove all the
charges unless and until those documents
are duly proved and recitals contained
therein also stand duly corroborated in the
oral inquiry. (Para 16)

B. The inquiry officer has the status of
adjudicatory authority who is adjudicating
upon the charges after not only duly
evaluating
and
appreciating
the
documentary
evidence
produced
in
support of the charge and the reply made
by the charged officer but also by getting
those documents duly proved by the
officers who had issued it. The dispatch
register, etc. and summoning of the concerned
clerk or officer was a basic thing which ought to
have been satisfied before bringing home the
charge by the inquiry officer, but unfortunately
this procedure has not been adopted and the
inquiry officer on his own by way of subjective
satisfaction
without
giving
any
objective
consideration to the material placed and the
request made by the charged officer proceeded
1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to bring home the charges. Such procedure is
definitely
a
flawed
procedure
which
cannot be approved. (Para 16)

C. In absence of an oral inquiry the
charges if proved the inquiry report
cannot be sustained in law and, hence, the
order of punishment based upon the same
as well as the order of the appellate
authority are also liable to be held
unsustainable. Once this Court finds that the
procedure has not been followed and the orders
impugned are liable to quashed, the matter is to
be remanded for decision afresh from the stage
from where the procedure has gone flawed.
(Para 17)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

8 All. Munni Lal Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1065
not considered or decided is also rejected
inasmuch as the petitioner being aggrieved
by the order impugned has filed the said
petition which itself is being decided now.

45. So far as judgment of the Calcutta
High Court in the case of Sashi Bhushan
Kumar (supra) is concerned, although the
said judgment would not be binding on this
Court, yet a perusal of the same indicates
that the writ court has not considered the
aforesaid
judgments
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court pertaining to expert's
opinion as well as the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
S.L.Kapoor (supra) pertaining to the fact
that when only one view is possible, there
would not be any requirement of even
giving a notice. Thus, the said judgment
would have no applicability to the facts of
the instant case.

46. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference is made
out. The writ petition stands dismissed.

47. The Court also records the
assistance extended by Mr. Mohd Azam
Siddiqui, Research Associate of this Court.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 1065
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 11008 of 2025

Munni Lal Patel ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Kumar, Syed Wajid Ali
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
 Whether the order of the punishment is
sustainable when the enquiry is in violation of
the procedure prescribed?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999: Rule
7 - When a thing is required to be done in
a particular manner then that thing should
be done in that manner alone. The inquiry
being de hors the Rules, is flawed one and
is deserved to be quashed. (Para 14, 15)

Since the procedure prescribed u/Rule 7 of
the 1999 rules makes it mandatory for the
inquiry officer to conduct oral inquiry, the
inquiry officer was hidebound in law to hold
oral inquiry unless and until he had recorded
that it was for certain reasons that he could
not summon the witnesses. The inquiry
officer failed to even call the charged officer
to give his oral evidence for which a specific
prayer
was
made
in
the
reply.
The
documents examined by the inquiry officer
may not be sufficient to prove all the
charges unless and until those documents
are duly proved and recitals contained
therein also stand duly corroborated in the
oral inquiry. (Para 16)

B. The inquiry officer has the status of
adjudicatory authority who is adjudicating
upon the charges after not only duly
evaluating
and
appreciating
the
documentary
evidence
produced
in
support of the charge and the reply made
by the charged officer but also by getting
those documents duly proved by the
officers who had issued it. The dispatch
register, etc. and summoning of the concerned
clerk or officer was a basic thing which ought to
have been satisfied before bringing home the
charge by the inquiry officer, but unfortunately
this procedure has not been adopted and the
inquiry officer on his own by way of subjective
satisfaction
without
giving
any
objective
consideration to the material placed and the
request made by the charged officer proceeded
1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to bring home the charges. Such procedure is
definitely
a
flawed
procedure
which
cannot be approved. (Para 16)

C. In absence of an oral inquiry the
charges if proved the inquiry report
cannot be sustained in law and, hence, the
order of punishment based upon the same
as well as the order of the appellate
authority are also liable to be held
unsustainable. Once this Court finds that the
procedure has not been followed and the orders
impugned are liable to quashed, the matter is to
be remanded for decision afresh from the stage
from where the procedure has gone flawed.
(Para 17)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. TATA Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar (2015) 11 SCC
628 (Para 14)
2. Prem Lata Mishra Vs. State of U.P., Writ A No.
44 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2025 (Para 15)
3. State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj
Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 (Para 16)
4. Jay Singh Vs. State of U.P and 2 others, Writ
A No. 19047 of 2023 (Para 17)
5. Managing Director ECIL Hydrabad etc Vs. B.
Karunakar etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074 (Para 17)

List of Acts/Statutes
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999.

List of Keywords
service, enquiry, charge-sheet, punishment.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant: Anil Kumar, Syed Wajid Ali
For Respondent: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Syed Wajid Ali, learned
counsel for petitioner and Shri Sanjeev
Singh,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General assisted by Shri R.S. Umrao,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
State respondents.

2. This petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution questions the propriety of
the disciplinary authority in passing the
order of punishment dated 24.07.2024 as
well as the order dated 15-16/5/2025
passed by the appellate authority affirming
the order of punishment. By the order of
punishment the disciplinary authority has
reverted the petitioner from the post of
Joint
Block
Development
Officer
to
Assistant Block Development Officer while
revoking
the
suspension
order
and
reinstating him in service under the order
dated 24.07.2024.

3. The disciplinary authority has relied
upon the findings returned by the inquiry
officer bringing home the charges levelled
against the charged officer in the chargesheet and thereby holding the charged
officer to be guilty of indiscipline and
dereliction in discharge of official duty,
inasmuch as he was held guilty for not
obeying the directives issued by the higher
officers as well as wantonness in his
character.

4. While the petitioner was issued with
show cause notice and he submitted reply, the
reply was also not found to be satisfactory
and accordingly the explanation offered was
brushed aside while accepting the report of
the inquiry officer.

5.
While
assailing
the
orders
impugned herein this petition petitioner has
chiefly taken a ground and so also it has
been argued by learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the entire domestic
enquiry was conducted by the inquiry
officer in a slipshod manner, inasmuch as
de hors the procedure prescribed under
Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (
Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for
short ?Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999).
8 All. Munni Lal Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1067

6. It is submitted that after the
petitioner was served with the charge-sheet
on 21.08.2023 containing as many as five
articles of charges, he submitted a detailed
reply to the inquiry officer to each charge
on 04.12.2023 and further demanded
personal hearing in the matter of inquiry
into the charges, also requested for
production of documents that had been
used as evidence in support of the charges
relating to the same i.e. 'list of dispatch
register, receipt register and administrative
register of the concerned desk clerk of the
office of Block Development Officer'
should also be placed in the inquiry. It was
further demanded in the reply that in
respect of the charge no.1 and 4 that related
to the petitioner's conduct in not complying
with the directives and order issued by the
higher officer that he had not been
participating in the meetings organized,
such
persons
who
corroborated
the
evidence
should
also
be
summoned.
However, the inquiry officer neither fixed
any date, time or place to hold oral inquiry,
nor summoned the concerned persons and
by
appreciating
the
documents
and
evidence of the petitioner ex parte, on its
own, proceeded to finalize inquiry and
submitted inquiry report.

7. Shri Syed Wajid Ali, learned
counsel for petitioner has vehemently
argued that the inquiry officer was not
justified in conducting the inquiry without
following the procedure prescribed under
Rule 7 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules,
1999
which
required
production
of
evidence not only at the end of the
delinquent
employee
but
also
oral
examination of delinquent employee and
departmental witnesses. It is argued that
specially
in
the
circumstances
when
petitioner himself demanded for oral
inquiry by the domestic inquiry officer, the
inquiry officer was not justified in not
fixing time, date and place for holding such
inquiry. Thus, the manner in which the
domestic inquiry was conducted, according
to learned counsel was a procedure to be
described as a flawed one resulting in an
unsustainable inquiry report. Replying to
the show cause notice Shri Syed Wajid Ali,
learned
counsel
for
petitioner
has
questioned the inquiry report on various
grounds particularly for non-appreciation
of the highlighted portion of his reply and
not permitting the examination of a crucial
witness by summoning him. It is argued by
Shri Wajid Ali, learned counsel that the
findings returned bringing home the
charges are vitiated for want of compliance
of statutory procedure prescribed under
Rule 7 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules,
1999 and so also the order of punishment is
bad and also the order passed by the
appellate authority affirming the order of
punishment.

8. Shri Syed Wajid Ali, learned
counsel for petitioner has placed reliance
upon the following authorities:

9. Before the Court could have
examined the records, Shri Sanjeev Singh,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Shri R.S. Umrao, learned
Standing Counsel fairly concedes that
records do not reveal factum of oral
inquiry, nor the records show any order
sheet/ note sheet of inquiry proceedings
indicative of any time and date fixed by the
inquiry officer requiring participation of the
charged officer and his examination and
examination of witnesses. He argues that
though inquiry report is absolutely silent on
that count, but since the documents that
were placed before the inquiry officer were
not specifically denied and the petitioner?s
reply has been duly considered and
discussed by the inquiry officer, the
1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
domestic inquiry cannot be claimed to be
vitiated in law just for want of oral inquiry.
Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional
Advocate General has argued that even the
disciplinary authority had also given ample
opportunity to the petitioner by way of
show cause notice and petitioner?s reply
has been duly considered vis a vis the
charges levelled in the charge-sheet and the
findings returned by the inquiry officer in
its report and, hence, it cannot be said that
there was no reasonable opportunity of
hearing
afforded
to
the
petitioner.
However, Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned
Additional Advocate General could not
dispute that oral examination is mandatory
requirement under Rule 7(4) of the
Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 which
should be adhered to in matters of domestic
inquiry.

10. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records, I find this to be admitted
position of fact that in the domestic enquiry
conducted by the inquiry officer in respect
of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet
framed and issued setting into motion the
disciplinary proceedings under the the
inquiry officer did not follow the procedure
by holding any oral inquiry in order to
appreciate this, Rule 7 of the Discipline and
Appeal Rules, 1999 in its entirety is
reproduced below:

"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
an authority subordinate to him an 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 chage-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 witnesses
proposed to prove the same along with 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 chargesheet shall be served by publication in a
8 All. Munni Lal Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1069
daily newspaper having wide circulation:
Provided that where the documentary
evidence
is
voluminous,
instead
of
furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, 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 crossexamine such witnesses. After recording
the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer
shall call and record the oral evidence
with 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
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 pleased, 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 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, many, 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
Presiding
Officer
appointed
by
the
disciplinary
authority
is
a
legal
practitioner of the disciplinary having
regard to the circumstances of the case so
permit:

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. "

(Emphasis added)

11. The relevant provisions quoted and
highlighted hereinabove, clearly provide
for inquiry officer to follow the procedure,
1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
like for instance (i) where the charged
officer admits the charge, the inquiry
officer
shall
submit
report
to
the
disciplinary authority on the basis of such
admission, (ii) whereas in the event
charged officer denies the charges then the
inquiry officer shall have to call the
witnesses given in the charge-sheet and
record their oral evidence in presence of the
charged officers, (iii) after recording
evidence of the departmental witnesses the
charged government servant shall also be
required to give his oral evidence, (iv)
however proviso to rule 7 permits the
inquiry officer to exercise its discretion to
summon any witnesses to give evidence or
any person to produce document in
accordance with the provisions of U.P.
Departmental Inquiry (Enforcement of
Attendance of Witnesses and Production of
Documents) Act, 1976, (v) the proviso also
permits the inquiry officer to refuse to call
a witness for reasons to be recorded by him
in writing, (vi) the inquiry officer may
further ask any question at any time from a
witness or from the charged officer with a
view to discovering the truth or obtain
proof of fact relevant to the charges; and
(vii) in the event the charged government
servant does not appear on the date fixed in
inquiry despite service of notice, the
inquiry officer may proceed with inquiry ex
parte and in such case he may record
statement of witnesses mentioned in the
charge-sheet even in the absence of
charged government servant.

12. Testing the facts of the case upon
rule 7 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules,
1999 as discussed above, I find that the
petitioner had made specific prayer in his
reply to the inquiry officer that he should
be afforded opportunity of personal hearing
and persons who made statement that the
petitioner would not be participating in the
meeting organized or the higher officers
should also be summoned. The intention,
therefore, was clear that petitioner wanted
oral examination and also production of
witnesses so as to cross-examine them. I
further find from the charge-sheet issued to
the
petitioner
that
letter
of
Block
Development Officer concerned dated
12.07.2023 was evidence in support of
charge No. 1, again the same letter is used
as evidence in support of charge No. 2,
whereas the letter of Chief Development
Officer dated 09.04.2023 was used as his
evidence in support of the charge No.3, and
again another letter by the same officer
dated 02.05.2023 was used as evidence in
support of charge No. 4 and yet another
letter of the District Development Officer
dated 04.05.2023 was taken as evidence in
support of charge no. 5. Petitioner gave
detailed reply to each of the charges
highlighting that forged and manipulated
letters were prepared to falsely frame him
into charges of negligence, disobedience
and to prove him as man of wanton
character. The relevant part of his reply
dated 04.12.2023is reproduced below:

"व्यण्क्तित सुनिाई के अिसर-

इस सम्बन्ि में अनुरोि है क्रक मैं
व्यण्क्तित सुनिाई का अिसर िाहता हूूँ ण्जनके
बबन्दु तनम्नित् हैं-

1. आरोप संख्या 1,2,3,4,5 में
दशागये िये पत्रों ण्जन्हे आरोपों में साक्ष्य के रूप
में प्रयोि क्रकया िया है उक्त तनिगत पत्रों से
सम्बण्न्ित अगिकारी िडि विकास अगिकारी,
सम्बंगित पटल सहायक को पत्रों से सम्बण्न्ित
डिस्पैि रण्जस्टर, ररसीट रण्जस्टर, वितरण
रण्जस्टर के साथ सुनिाई में उपण्स्थत रहनें के
तनदेश देना िाहें।
8 All. Munni Lal Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1071

2. आरोप संख्या 01 से 04 में
लिाये िये के अततररक्त संख्या 5 में क्रकया
िया कमन क्रक इसि पूिग िी आदेशों/तनदेशों
का
पररपालन
नहीं
क्रकया
िया
एिं
उच्िगिकाररयों की बैठक में प्रततिि नहीं
क्रकय
िया,
की
छायाप्रततयाूँ,
ण्जनका
अनुपालन अिेहस्ताक्षरी द्िारा नहीं क्रकया
िया
तथा
कगथत
आदेश/तनदेश
उच्िगिकाररयों
की
बैठक
के
आदेश
अिोहस्ताक्षरी को प्राप्त करानें के प्रमाण के
साथ सम्बण्न्ित ि सुनिाई में उपण्स्थत
रहनें के तनदेश देना िाहें।

उललेिनीय है क्रक जनपद में
ि0वि0अ0/संयुक्त ि0वि0अ0 के उपलब्ि
होते हुए िी शासना संख्या 2983 हदनांक
27 जून 2006, पत्र संख्या R-408 हदनांक
27 मई 2019 एिं शासनादेश हदनांक जनिरी
2023 में उण्ललखित तनदेशों के विरूद्ि
विकास िडि का प्रिार जनपद स्तरीय
अगिकाररयों स्ियं अगिग्रहीत कर भलया
िया है तथा शासकीय कायग करने के
िाण्जब हक एिं अिसर से संयुक्त ि
विकास अगिकाररयों को िंगित क्रकया िया,
जो जाूँि का विषय है।

आरोप पत्र का उत्तर/ स्पटटीकरण
मय साक्ष्यों सहहत आपकी सेिा में
आिश्यक कायगिाही हेतु प्रे है।"

13. In view of the above discussions
qua the charge sheet issued and the reply
submitted by the petitioner and upon
perusal of the last three paragraphs of reply
of the petitioner, even a man of ordinary
prudence would conclude that petitioner
wanted certain documents to be produced
in inquiry in his presence and also wanted
that certain officers to be summoned for
oral examination. However, the inquiry
officer in total violation of the procedure
prescribed under Rule 7 proceeded to hold
inquiry and submitted a report dated
18.04.2024 bringing home the charges.

14. This Court as well as the Supreme
Court has repeatedly held that when a thing
is required to be done in a particular
manner then that thing should be done in
that manner alone. In the case of TATA
Chemicals Limited v. Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar (2015)
11 Supreme Court Cases 628 the Court
has held thus:

"The Tribunal's judgment has
proceeded on the basis that even though the
samples were drawn contrary to law, the
appellants would be estopped because their
representative was present when the
samples were drawn and they did not
object immediately. This is a completely
perverse finding both on fact and law. On
fact, it has been more than amply proved
that no representative of the appellant was,
in fact, present at the time the Customs
Inspector took the samples. Shri K.M. Jani
who was allegedly present not only stated
that he did not represent the Clearing
Agent of the appellants in that he was not
their employee but also stated that he was
not present when the samples were taken.
In
fact,
therefore,
there
was
no
representative of the appellants when the
samples were taken. In law equally the
Tribunal ought to have realized that there
can be no estoppel against law. If the law
requires that something be done in a
particular manner, it must be done in that
manner, and if not done in that manner has
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no existence in the eye of law at all. The
Customs Authorities are not absolved from
following the law depending upon the acts
of a particular assessee. Something that is
illegal cannot convert itself into something
legal by the act of a third person."

(Emphasis added)

15. Considering the above judgment
and having found the departmental inquiry
to be de hors the procedure prescribed
under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules in the
matter of Prem Lata Mishra v. State of
U.P. Writ A No. 44 of 2024 decided on
03.07.2025 I have held that the inquiry
being de hors the Rules, was flawed one
and deserved to be quashed.

16.Since the procedure prescribed
under Rule 7 of the 1999 rules makes it
mandatory for the inquiry officer to
conduct oral inquiry, the inquiry officer
was hidebound in law to hold oral inquiry
unless and until he had recorded that it was
for certain reasons that he could not
summon the witnesses. There is no such
recitals contained in the inquiry report
which may justify non-summoning of
witnesses and non-production of demanded
documents like dispatch register, etc in
inquiry proceedings proceedings held to
investigate
/inquire
into
the
charges
levelled against the petitioner that were
demanded. Still further what is very
astonishing that the inquiry officer failed to
even call the charged officer to give his
oral evidence for which a specific prayer
was made in the reply. The documents that
have been relied upon has been claimed to
be admitted one as those documents were
used as evidence in support of the charges
in
the
charge-sheet.
The
documents
examined by the inquiry officer may not be
sufficient to prove all the charges unless
and until those documents are duly proved
and recitals contained therein also stand
duly corroborated in the oral inquiry. It has
been held in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 772
that the inquiry officer is having the status
of
adjudicatory
authority
which
is
adjudicating upon the charges after not
only duly evaluating and appreciating the
documentary evidence produced in support
of the charge and the reply made by the
charged officer but also by getting those
documents duly proved by the officers who
had issued it. The dispatch register, etc. and
summoning of the concerned clerk or
officer was a basic thing which ought to
have been satisfied before bringing home
the charge by the inquiry officer, but
unfortunately this procedure has not been
adopted and the inquiry officer on his own
by way of subjective satisfaction without
giving any objective consideration to the
material placed and the request made by the
charged officer proceeded to bring home
the charges. Such procedure is definitely a
flawed
procedure
which
cannot
be
approved.

17. In the judgment of this Court in
the case of Jay Singh v. State of U.P and
2 others Writ A No. 19047 of 2023, this
Court has dealt with this aspect of the
matter and held that in the absence of an
oral inquiry the charges if proved the
inquiry report cannot be sustained in law
and, hence, the order of punishment based
upon the same as well as the order of the
appellate authority are also liable to be held
unsustainable. However, the Court is
conscious of the fact that once this Court
finds that the procedure has not been
followed and the orders impugned are
liable to quashed, the matter is to be
remanded for decision afresh from the
8 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1073
stage from where the procedure has gone
flawed. In the case of Managing Director
ECIL Hydrabad etc v B. Karunakar etc
etc AIR 1994 SC 1074 . Constitution
Bench
of
Supreme
Court
has
very
categorically held that in matter of
disciplinary proceedings if the proceedings
have to be set aside then it should be
remanded from the stage from which it has
become erroneous and the status of the
employee should be such as was on the
date of passing of the impugned order.

18. In view of the above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

19.
The
inquiry
report
dated
18.04.2024 and the order of punishment
dated 15-16/5/2025 are hereby quashed
with all consequential benefits in the sense
that status of petitioner shall remain the
same as was on the date of passing of the
order impugned. The matter is remanded
for fresh inquiry from the stage of reply to
the
charge
sheet
submitted
by
the
petitioner. The disciplinary authority shall
appoint a new inquury officer within a
period of four weeks from the production
of certified copy of this order to hold
domestic inquiry afresh. This time the
inquiry officer shall give due participation
of hearing to the delinquent employee
namely the petitioner in the inquiry and
petitioner shall be permitted to examine the
departmental witness in support of the
documentary evidence. In the event inquiry
officer does not want to summon any
particular witness even upon the request
being made by the petitioner, he shall
record reasons for the same.

20. The domestic enquiry as directed
above
shall
be
concluded
within
a
maximum period of two months upon
notice issued to the petitioner to participate
in the inquiry by the inquiry officer. Soon
after the report is submitted the disciplinary
authority shall proceed to conclude the
proceedings as per the findings returned in
the inquiry report in due compliance of
principles of natural justice within next one
month's time.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 1073
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 11846 of 2025

Virendra Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mahendra Singh, Santosh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
 Whether a regular departmental enquiry is
required in cases where the petitioner has
submitted forged documents?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Basic Educational
Staffs Rules, 1973: Rule 3(v)(vi) - In case
the employment has been obtained based
on fraudulent documents on concealing
material facts, the beneficiary of such
fraud cannot seek that proper procedure
as prescribed under Rule 1999 must be
followed. (Para 26)

Fraudulently
obtained
order
of
appointment or approval can be recalled
by the authority concerned. In such cases
merely because the employee continued in
service for a number of years, on the basis