# Nagendra Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 623
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-17
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 18422 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagendra-narayan-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51296
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment
-
Award
of
censure
-
Punishment order suffers from absence of
reasons - Effect - Cryptic and laconic
order - Validity challenged - Held, the
imperative of furnishing reasons in an
order, that is quasi judicial in nature, or
even administrative, if it determines rights
of parties and has civil consequences,
cannot be underestimated, much less
discounted - Tested on the anvil of well
settled principles about what may be
considered a valid order of punishment
passed by a Disciplinary Authority, the
impugned order cannot be sustained
because it is utterly cryptic and laconic -
Awarding censure to the petitioner cannot
be sustained. (Para 24, 25, 27 & 43)

B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Adverse entry and censure
- For the same omission, both adverse
entry
and
censure
was
awarded
-
Permissibility
-
Non-consideration
of
material evidence - Effect - Held, it is true
that adverse entry and censure for the
same act or omission can be awarded, but
it is equally true that an adverse entry
written in the ACR is not relevant material
at all to return a finding based on the
same omission in disciplinary proceedings.
The findings of the Inquiry Officer are,
therefore, based on ignorance of material
evidence and taking into consideration of
irrelevant material, besides being cryptic.
The same cannot be sustained. (Para 36)

C. Expression 'Malice in Law' - Meaning -
'Legal malice' or 'malice in law' means
'something done without lawful excuse'.
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In other words, 'it is an act done
wrongfully
and
wilfully
without
reasonable or probable cause, and not
necessarily an act done from ill feeling and
spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of
the
rights
of
others'
-
S.
R.
Venkataraman's case and Goverdhanlal
Pitti's case relied upon. (Para 40 and 41)

D. Expression 'Perverse finding' - Meaning
- 'Perverse finding' would mean a finding
which is not only against the weight of
evidence but is altogether against the
evidence itself - Neelam Gupta's case
relied upon. (Para 42)

E. Service Law - Promotion - Entitlement
- The petitioner was deprived from
promotion due to punishment order -
Punishment order quashed - Effect - Held,
the petitioner would be entitled to a
consideration
for
promotion
by
the
Selection
Committee
to
be
promptly
convened and subject to the outcome of
their recommendations, the petitioner
entitled to seniority, if promoted to the
next higher cadre with effect from the
date that juniors to him have been
promoted. (Para 44)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,625 of 56,783. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39625 for what follows._

12 All. Nagendra Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
623
decision shall be taken within a
month of receipt of the particulars from the
Manager of the Institution. Immediately
upon
the
recommendations
of
the
Committee being made, the necessary
instructions shall be issued by the DIOS to
the Manager/ Principal/ Headmaster of
whichever institution it is decided to
appoint the petitioner. The institution
concerned, to whomsoever the instructions/
directions are issued by the DIOS, shall
proceed to appoint the petitioner within a
month of receipt of such instructions. It
shall be the duty of the DIOS to ensure that
this mandamus of ours is carried out
punctiliously and without fail.

26. This writ petition is allowed in
terms of the aforesaid orders.

27. There shall be no order as to
costs.

28.

Let
this
order
be
communicated
to
the
Manager,
Sant
Tulsidas Municipal Inter College, Soron,
Kasganj, the Chairman, Nagar Palika
Parishad, Soron, Kasganj through the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kasganj by
the Registrar (Compliance). The order
would also be communicated to the Joint
Director of Education, Aligarh Region,
Aligarh through the learned Civil Judge (Sr.
Div.),
Aligarh
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 623
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ -A No. 18422 of 2023
Connected with
Writ-A No. 2255 of 2024

Nagendra Narayan Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pankaj Tiwari, Rajan Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment
-
Award
of
censure
-
Punishment order suffers from absence of
reasons - Effect - Cryptic and laconic
order - Validity challenged - Held, the
imperative of furnishing reasons in an
order, that is quasi judicial in nature, or
even administrative, if it determines rights
of parties and has civil consequences,
cannot be underestimated, much less
discounted - Tested on the anvil of well
settled principles about what may be
considered a valid order of punishment
passed by a Disciplinary Authority, the
impugned order cannot be sustained
because it is utterly cryptic and laconic -
Awarding censure to the petitioner cannot
be sustained. (Para 24, 25, 27 & 43)

B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Adverse entry and censure
- For the same omission, both adverse
entry
and
censure
was
awarded
-
Permissibility
-
Non-consideration
of
material evidence - Effect - Held, it is true
that adverse entry and censure for the
same act or omission can be awarded, but
it is equally true that an adverse entry
written in the ACR is not relevant material
at all to return a finding based on the
same omission in disciplinary proceedings.
The findings of the Inquiry Officer are,
therefore, based on ignorance of material
evidence and taking into consideration of
irrelevant material, besides being cryptic.
The same cannot be sustained. (Para 36)

C. Expression 'Malice in Law' - Meaning -
'Legal malice' or 'malice in law' means
'something done without lawful excuse'.
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In other words, 'it is an act done
wrongfully
and
wilfully
without
reasonable or probable cause, and not
necessarily an act done from ill feeling and
spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of
the
rights
of
others'
-
S.
R.
Venkataraman's case and Goverdhanlal
Pitti's case relied upon. (Para 40 and 41)

D. Expression 'Perverse finding' - Meaning
- 'Perverse finding' would mean a finding
which is not only against the weight of
evidence but is altogether against the
evidence itself - Neelam Gupta's case
relied upon. (Para 42)

E. Service Law - Promotion - Entitlement
- The petitioner was deprived from
promotion due to punishment order -
Punishment order quashed - Effect - Held,
the petitioner would be entitled to a
consideration
for
promotion
by
the
Selection
Committee
to
be
promptly
convened and subject to the outcome of
their recommendations, the petitioner
entitled to seniority, if promoted to the
next higher cadre with effect from the
date that juniors to him have been
promoted. (Para 44)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs St. of U.P.
& ors.; (1970) 1 SCC 764

2. S.R. Venkataraman Vs U.O.I. & anr.; (1979) 2
SCC 491

3. St. of A.P. & ors. Vs Goverdhanlal Pitti;
(2003) 4 SCC 739

4. Neelam Gupta & ors. Vs Rajendra Kumar
Gupta & anr.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2824

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This judgment will decide the
present writ petition and connected Writ-A
No.2255 of 2024. Since affidavits have
been exchanged in Writ-A No.18422 of
2023, the said petition will be treated as the
leading petition and facts noticed from the
pleadings there.

2. The petitioner substantially
seeks
to
challenge
an
order
dated
04.09.2023
passed
by
the
State
Government, punishing him with the award
of a censure after disciplinary proceedings.
He also challenges the result of the
Departmental Promotion Committee held
on 05.09.2023, by which respondent No.3,
an Officer junior to him, has been promoted
to the post of a Chief Development Officer/
Joint Development Commissioner/ Joint
Commissioner. The petitioner further prays
that a mandamus be issued by this Court,
ordering the State Government, represented
by
the
Principal
Secretary,
Rural
Development and the Commissioner, Rural
Development, to consider the petitioner's
name for promotion before the third
respondent and others junior to him.

3. In the connected writ petition,
the petitioner challenges an order passed by
the State Government dated 04.10.2023,
rejecting a representation made by the
petitioner
against
the
order
dated
04.09.2023, impugned in the leading
petition. This petition has, therefore, been
heard on the basis of affidavits exchanged
in the leading petition.

4. The petitioner is an officer in the
Provincial Civil Service of the State. He
belongs to the 1994 Batch. He joined
service as a Block Development Officer on
11.12.1997. The petitioner says that he is
the topper of the 1994 Batch. At the time
this petition was presented, the petitioner
was working as the Deputy Commissioner,
National Livelihood Mission, Pratapgarh.
The petitioner stands at Sr. No.1 of the
12 All. Nagendra Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
625
1994 Batch in the seniority list of the
Provincial Development Service Cadre. A
seniority list was issued in the year 2012,
where the petitioner's name figures at Sr.
No.289.
He
says
that
he
has
an
exceptionally good service record and
never awarded any adverse entry, except
the one in the month of February, 2002,
which the petitioner has represented against
to
the
State
Government.
The
representation was said to be pending until
time when the leading petition was
instituted, but this representation now
stands decided and, in any case, does not
survive
the
order
dated
04.10.2023,
impugned in the connected petition.

5. While the petitioner was
stationed at Pratapgarh, he was placed
under suspension pending inquiry vide
order dated 29.11.2022. The suspension
order says that the petitioner, while posted
as
the
Deputy
Commissioner
(SelfEmployment), Pratapgarh, inspected the
community toilet at Village Kewaradih on
17.06.2022. On the basis of his inspection
report, in place of Smt. Sita Devi, some
other volunteer from the Self-Assistance
Group was selected to look after the
community toilet. In consequence, Writ-C
No.4333 of 2022, Stri Mahila Swayam
Sahayata Samooh through its President v.
State of U.P. and others, was instituted
before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. It
is then remarked that the petitioner had not
submitted
his
report
regarding
the
community toilet based on records, on
account of which the State Government
was placed in an uncomfortable position
before this Court. For the said happening,
the petitioner was found prima facie guilty.
It is remarked in the suspension order that
for the petitioner not discharging his duties
with
responsibility,
the
Government's
image was tarnished. The order goes on to
say that on this allegation, disciplinary
proceedings are contemplated, pending
which the petitioner has been placed under
suspension. There was nothing else said in
the suspension order, except the allegations
indicated.

6. The petitioner says that he had
carried out his inspection on 17.05.2022,
acting on complaints received in his office
and made his report after inspection based
on an objective assessment of the situation
that prevailed on the spot. His report is one
dated 17.05.2022. The petitioner has made
a reference to three orders, that were made
in Writ-C No.4333 of 2022 by the
Lucknow Bench of this Court. These are
orders dated 13.07.2023, 27.07.2022 and
01.08.2022. It is pointed out that vide order
dated 13.07.2022, this Court directed the
Additional Chief Secretary to file his
personal affidavit, but since he did not put
in his affidavit, he was directed to appear in
person vide order dated 27.07.2022. Upon
his appearance before this Court by the
Additional Chief Secretary orders were
made regarding maintenance of toilet in
rural areas, particularly highlighting the
security of women, where toilets for men
and women had to constructed at some
distance, as the orders would show.

7. The petitioner challenged the
suspension order before the Lucknow
Bench of this Court by means of Writ-A
No.8333 of 2022, wherein the Court, vide
order
dated
22.12.2022,
stayed
the
petitioner's suspension. In compliance, the
petitioner was reinstated in service vide
order dated 12.01.2023, but not paid his
salary. When Writ-A No.8333 of 2022
came up before the Court, it appears that
the Court disposed of the writ petition,
declining to interfere with the suspension
order, but with a direction to the Inquiry
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officer to complete the inquiry within a
period of three months from the date the
petitioner received a copy of the chargesheet along with relevant documents relied
upon in support of the charge. This
direction was issued because the petitioner
asserts that he was not given a copy of the
charge-sheet in all this while. The petitioner
says that he appeared before the Mission
Director, U.P. Rural Livelihood Mission,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 26.06.2023 and
requested him to furnish a copy of the
charge-sheet as ordered by this Court. The
Mission Director expressed his inability as
a copy of the charge-sheet was not
available with his office. In this regard, the
Mission Director addressed a letter dated
28.04.2023
to
the
Additional
Chief
Secretary, Rural Development, Government
of U.P., requesting that a copy of the
charge-sheet be made available to him, so
that the order of this Court to furnish a
copy of the charge-sheet to the petitioner,
could be complied with.

8. It is the petitioner's case that
despite the aforesaid letter addressed by the
Mission Director, the Additional Chief
Secretary did not cause a copy of the
charge-sheet to be furnished to the
petitioner, compelling him to approach the
Mission Director once again. The Joint
Managing Director addressed a letter dated
18.05.2023
to
the
Additional
Chief
Secretary, requesting him to provide a copy
of the charge-sheet for the purpose of
providing it to the petitioner. A copy of the
charge-sheet was ultimately served upon
the petitioner on 15.05.2023. He asserts
that a reply to it was submitted within a
month i.e. on 14.06.2023. It is then said
that in compliance with the directions of
this Court carried in the order dated
24.04.2023 passed in Writ-A No.8333 of
2022, the respondents were bound to
conclude the inquiry within a period of
three months from 15.05.2023 i.e. by
15.08.2023, but they did not do so. The
petitioner was nevertheless served with a
copy of the inquiry report on 08.08.2023,
where the Inquiry Officer found the
petitioner not guilty on the other charges,
except Charge Nos.3 and 5. The petitioner
submitted his objections to the inquiry
report on 11.08.2023.

9. It is said by the petitioner that as
regard Charge No.3, the misconduct,
subject matter of the charge, had already
been dealt with by the respondents and the
petitioner awarded an adverse entry, against
which he had preferred a representation,
which was not disposed of. So far as
Charge No.5 was concerned, it related to
payment of travel allowance to employees
of the department from June, 2020 to July,
2021. It is said by the petitioner that he was
posted at the particular station, to which the
charge relates, on 16.08.2021. He could,
therefore, never be held responsible for
payment of travel allowance to employees
prior to his joining station. It is the
petitioner's case that he had approached the
Chief
Development
Officer
and
the
Mission Director, who suggested seeking a
clarification in the matter from the Mission
Director. The petitioner wrote successive
letters dated 08.08.2022, 06.09.2022 and
26.11.2022,
requesting
the
Mission
Director to issue a clarification as to the
manner in which payment of travel
allowance was to be made, inasmuch as the
officer posted at the station between June,
2020 to July, 2021 had already retired or
transferred to a different station. No
clarification in this regard, according to the
petitioner, was received from the Mission
Director. In consequence, travel allowance
payable to employees for the period June,
2020 to July, 2021 could not be released.
12 All. Nagendra Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
627
10. It is emphasized in this regard
that there is a circular issued by the Chief
Development Officer dated 28.05.2022,
which
requires
certification
under
signatures of the officer posted at the
station when the travel by employee/
employees was undertaken, for payment of
the
allowance
claimed.
It
is
this
requirement, which prevented the petitioner
from releasing the travel allowance claimed
for the period in question without the
signatures of the officer posted at the
relevant time or a clarification in this
regard being issued by the Mission
Director.

11. It is particularly emphasized
that
on
one
hand
the
disciplinary
proceeding were not brought to an end, and
on the other, the Commissioner, Rural
Development
issued
a
letter
dated
19.07.2023, informing all officers of the
cadre that a Departmental Promotion
Committee to consider promotion of
officers on vacant posts during the
recruitment year 2022-23 shall be held and
records of officers considered eligible for
promotion had been summoned. It is
pleaded that officers at Sr. Nos.1-12 of the
list annexed to the letter dated 19.07.2023
issued
by
the
Commissioner,
Rural
Development are officers of the 1993 Batch
and those placed at Sr. Nos.13-26 belong to
the 1994 Batch (the petitioner's batch). The
petitioner, being the topper of his Batch, his
name finds place at Item No.13 of the said
list. The petitioner emphasizes that his
eligibility is reflected from the list
appended to the letter dated 19.07.2023, but
says that the respondents are trying to harm
the petitioner by not concluding the
disciplinary proceedings, inasmuch the
petitioner is the senior most officer of his
Batch and there being no adverse entry in
his service record, the petitioner was
entitled to be considered for promotion to
the next higher post, certainly before his
juniors.

12. The petitioner made a detailed
representation to the Additional Chief
Secretary on 11.08.2023, requesting that
the inquiry proceedings be dropped looking
to the frivolous nature of the charges
against him. No order was made on the said
representation by the Additional Chief
Secretary. It is said that the order dated
29.11.2022, by which proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner and the
charges that figure in the charge-sheet show
the flimsy nature thereof and further
indicate that these were brought with a
view to harass the petitioner.

13. The petitioner, apprehending a
non-consideration
of
his
case
for
promotion, instituted Writ-A No.15117 of
2023, which was taken up on 12.09.2023.
Since, there was a strike by members of the
Bar on that day, no one appeared on the
petitioner's behalf. This Court, however,
disposed of the writ petition aforesaid vide
order dated 12.09.2023, directing the
competent
Authority
to
decide
the
petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2023
(addressed
to
the
Additional
Chief
Secretary), in accordance with law within a
period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the order
made by this Court. The petitioner was
directed
to
serve
a
copy
of
the
representation dated 11.08.2023 again,
along with a certified copy of the order
passed by this Court. In compliance with
the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by this
Court, the petitioner moved a detailed
representation to the Principal Secretary,
Rural
Development,
Lucknow
(the
competent Authority), bringing to his
notice the order of this Court. In
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compliance with the orders of this Court
dated
12.09.2023
passed
in
Writ-A
No.15117 of 2023, the State Government
passed orders dated 04.09.2023, punishing
the petitioner with the award of a censure
and
disposing
of
the
disciplinary
proceedings.

14. Aggrieved by the order dated
04.09.2023, the petitioner has instituted the
present writ petition. The connected writ
petition has been instituted against the
order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the State
Government,
rejecting
the
petitioner's
representation dated 08.09.2023 preferred
against the order dated 04.09.2023 to the
State Government.

15. Notice of motion in the leading
petition was issued on 02.11.2023. A
counter affidavit on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 was filed on 30.01.2024, to
which the petitioner has filed a rejoinder on
09.05.2024. This petition was admitted to
hearing on 02.07.2024, which proceeded
forthwith. The matter was heard further on
05.07.2024 and finally on 23.07.2024,
when judgment was reserved.

16. Heard Mr. Ramesh Upadhyay,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Rajan Upadhyay and Mr. Pankaj Tiwari,
learned Counsel in support of this petition
and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf
of the State.

17. It is submitted by Mr. Ramesh
Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate that the
petitioner, while holding the position of the
Deputy Commissioner, National Livelihood
Mission, Pratapgarh, had conducted an onspot inquiry on 17.06.2022 regarding the
maintenance of public toilets. The Principal
Secretary, Rural Development had issued a
circular dated 15.07.2020, saying that
maintenance of public toilets should be
done through a self-help group, for which
requisite orders may be made by the Gram
Panchayat. While conducting the inquiry as
aforesaid, the Block Development Officer
of the concerned Block informed the
petitioner that there was no record
regarding
maintenance
of
community
toilets
available
in
his
office.
The
petitioner, therefore, recommended that
maintenance of public toilets be done
through resolution of the Gaon Sabha
passed in an open meeting, as directed by
the Principal Secretary. In the meantime,
Writ-C No.4333 of 2022, questioning the
allotment of public toilets, was filed before
the Lucknow Bench of this Court and the
Division Bench vide their Lordships' order
dated 13.07.2022 directed the Additional
Chief Secretary to file his personal
affidavit,
scheduling
the
case
for
27.07.2022. As the Additional Chief
Secretary did not file his personal affidavit
by the date fixed, the Division Bench
summoned him. This piqued the Additional
Chief
Secretary
into
ensuring
the
petitioner's suspension from service vide
order dated 27.11.2022, which specifically
mentions that as a result of the petitioner's
report, the State Government faced an
awkward position before the Court, for
which the petitioner was prima facie to
blame.

18. The Inquiry Officer found
Charge No.3 proved and Charge No.5
partially proved against the petitioner. The
petitioner filed his detailed objections to
the inquiry report. In his objections, the
petitioner said that he had mentioned
reasons for the delay in the feeding of data
in the computer and that was primarily on
account
of
the
strike
by
contract
employees. It was also mentioned that the
average feeding of data in the entire State
12 All. Nagendra Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
629
was 50% and it was 63% in District
Pratapgarh. It was also said by the
petitioner in his objection that he had been
given an adverse entry already and a
second punishment for the same allegation
cannot be awarded. This was regarding
Charge No.3. In relation to Charge No.5, it
was said that the matters relating to travel
allowance,
antedated
the
petitioner's
posting at Pratapgarh. Despite repeated
requests by him to the Chief Development
Officer, regarding the matter of payment of
travel allowance to employees of the
Department, which related to a period of
time
before
he
joined,
the
Chief
Development Officer asked the petitioner
to seek a clarification from the Mission
Director.
The
petitioner
did
seek
clarifications through several letters, but
none was forthcoming either from the
Chief Development Officer or the Mission
Director. This resulted in delay in the
payment of travel allowance to some of the
employees, which relates to a period of
time before the petitioner joined his post at
Pratapgarh. It is in the last submitted by
Mr. Ramesh Upadhyay that the only reason
given in the impugned order is that the
delinquent
officer's
reply
was
not
satisfactory. This reasoning, according to
Mr. Upadhyay, is absolutely cryptic and in
breach of Rule 10(2) of the Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, 'the Rules
of 1999'), which provides that where a
penalty is imposed, reason thereof shall be
given. It is, particularly, urged by Mr.
Upadhyay that the Departmental Promotion
Committee was scheduled to meet on
05.09.2023 and the impugned order was
passed mala fide with a view to harm the
petitioner, so that he would become
ineligible for consideration. It is also
pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate
that the promotion order dated 24.05.2024,
filed
as
Annexure
No.2
to
the
supplementary affidavit dated 23.07.2024,
shows that persons junior to the petitioner
have been promoted in the higher scale and
on the higher post, leaving out the
petitioner.

19. The learned Standing Counsel,
on the other hand, submits that the order of
punishment has been passed after going
through the entire procedure of inquiry
required to be made in a major penalty
matter, even though what has been awarded
to the petitioner is a minor penalty. This
could be done by just issuing the petitioner
with a show cause notice and nothing more.
He submits that the jurisdiction of this
Court does not extend to scrutinizing the
correctness of the decision made by the
Disciplinary Authority, but the fairness of
procedure. There is nothing unfair about
the procedure adopted in holding the
disciplinary inquiry or in passing the order
impugned based on the inquiry report,
which too has been done after furnishing
the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report.
The petitioner's reply to the inquiry report
too has been considered.

20. We have carefully considered
the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties by learned Counsel and perused the
record.

21. The charges, on the foot of
which this inquiry has proceeded, carries
seven charges. The copy of the chargesheet filed along with the petition, for some
reason, is a truncated document, where all
charges, otherwise reflected from the
record, are not there. That, however, does
not make much difference because in the
inquiry report dated 27.07.2022, all the
seven charges have been set out verbatim.
Out of the seven charges, Charges Nos.1, 2,
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4 and 6 were held not proved, whereas
Charge No.3 proved and Charge No.5
partially proved. No finding was recorded
on Charge No.7 on ground that the matter
was being examined by the Additional
Chief Secretary and also the subject of a
writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of
this Court. The impugned order of
punishment dated 04.09.2023, that has been
passed, is, therefore, founded on whatever
culpability, has been determined for the
petitioner on the basis of conclusions
recorded by the Inquiry Officer, vis-a-vis
Charges Nos.3 and 5. Charge No.3 reads:

"आरोप सांख्यर-3
िासन के भनिेिानुसार आई०सी०डी०एस०
के
अन्द्तगात
स्क्ियं
सिायता
समूिों
द्वारा
आई०सी०डी०एस० केन्द्रों पर ड्राई रािन पिुॅ चाने /
भितरण का काया भकया जा रिा िै। जनपि प्रतापगढ़ में
माि अक्टूबर, 2020 तक कुल 1155 स्क्ियं सिायता
समूिों के सापेक्ष मात्र 02 स्क्ियं सिायता समूिों के बैंक
भडटेकस भिनांक 11 फरिरी, 2022 तक पोटाल पर
फीड करते िुए िेररफाई भकया गया िै। आप द्वारा
आई०सी०डी०एस० योजनान्द्तगात ड्राई रािन भितरण
जैसे मित्िपूणा योजना का भरयान्द्ियन ससमय सम्पाभित
निीं कराया गया। आपके भिभथल रिैये के प्रभत िासन
के पत्र संख्या आर-20 / 38-1-2022-3508 /
2022 भिनांक 11.02.2022 द्वारा प्रभतकूल प्रभिभष्ट
भनगात की गयी भजसके भलए आप िोषी िै। माि अगस्क्त
2021 में स्क्ियं सिायता समूि से जुड़ी मभिलाओं द्वारा
ड्राई रािन भितररत भकया गया था, उनके पाररश्रभमक की
धनराभि के िुगतान िेतु पोटाल पर भितरण की ररपोटा की
फीभडंग 63 प्रभतित पायी गयी। योजना के भरयान्द्ियन
में आपके द्वारा अपेभक्षत रूभच निीं ली जा रिी िै,
भजसके भलए प्रथम दृष्टया आप िोषी िैं।"

22. Likewise, Charge No.5 runs as
follows:

"आरोप सांख्यर-5
राष्ट्रीय ग्रामीण आजीभिका भमिन के
अन्द्तगात डी०एम०एम०/ बी०एम०एम० सभित कुल 74
कमाचाररयों की यात्रा-ित्ता िुगतान सम्बन्द्धी पत्रािली
कायाालय में भिनांक 09.05.2022 को प्रस्क्तुत की
गयी। प्रस्क्तुत पत्रािली में उक्त भतभथ को पाया गया भक
अभधकांि यात्रा-ित्ता सम्बन्द्धी मॉग पत्र खण्ड भिकास
अभधकारी द्वारा सत्याभपत निी िै/ सिायक भिकास
अभधकारी के िस्क्ताक्षर िै / सभचि द्वारा सिायक भिकास
अभधकारी के रूप में िस्क्ताक्षर भकया गया िै/ मांगपत्र
मूल रूप में न िोकर छायाप्रभतयां िै जो भित्तीय मामलों
में स्क्िीकाया निी िै, जबभक लेखाकार द्वारा राष्ट्रीय
ग्रामीण
आजीभिका
भमिन
के
अन्द्तगात
एफ०एल०टी०ए० मि के िुगतान सम्बन्द्धी भबन्द्िुओं पर
भस्क्थभत स्क्पष्ट भकये जाने का उकलेख भकया गया िै। इसके
उपरान्द्त भिनांक 28.05.2022 को 41 कमाचाररयों
के टी०ए० िेतु पत्रािली प्रस्क्तुत की गयी। परीक्षण करने
पर पत्रािली उभकलभखत भबन्द्िुओं के सापेक्ष निीं पायी
गयी । यथा:- खण्ड भिकास अभधकारी मान्द्धाता एिं
कुण्डा का िस्क्ताक्षर फॉर करके भकया गया िै। सिी
टी०ए० मांगपत्र की छायाप्रभतयां संलग्न की गयी िै। कोई
िी मांग पत्र लेखाकार एिं उपायुक्त स्क्ितः रोजगार द्वारा
सत्याभपत निी भकया गया िै। राष्ट्रीय ग्रामीण आजीभिका
भमिन के अन्द्तगात भिकास खण्ड स्क्तर पर कायारत भमिन
प्रबन्द्धकों
ने
अपने
प्राथानापत्र
भिनांक
05.08.2022द्वारा अिगत कराया गया िै भक उनका
यात्रा ित्ता माि जून, 2020 से तथा पूिा में चलायी
गयी ड्राईिों के संचालन में िोने िाले व्यय का
समायोजन लभम्बत िै। तत्रम में मुख्य भिकास
अभधकारी, प्रतापगढ़ के पत्र संख्या 302 भिनांक
28.05.2022 के माध्यम से 'कारण बताओ नोभटस'
भनगात भकया गया एिं पत्र संख्या 744 भिनांक
06.09.2022 के माध्यम 'चेतािनी' भनगात की गयी
भजसका आपके द्वारा उत्तर निी भिया गया, इस प्रकार
पयािेक्षणीय / पिीय िाभयत्िों का भनिािन निी भकये जाने
के भलए प्रथम दृष्टया आप िोषी िै।"

23. While it is true that in any
quasi judicial proceedings or administrative
proceedings, charges are not required to be
framed with the formality expected and
forthcoming in a Court of law, but the
charge should nevertheless be definitive in
its terms and convey the essentials of the
act or omission, on the basis of which
12 All. Nagendra Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
631
misconduct is alleged. It should be fairly
ascertainable by the delinquent as to what
is the allegation against him with sufficient
particulars indicated to enable him to
effectively answer it. In this context while
some sense may be made of Charge No.3,
this is not the case with Charge No.5.
Charge No.5, as would be evident, carries a
jumble of allegations and hardly reads like
a charge. It reads more like a part from an
essay. Vague and mixed up allegations of
the kind, that Charge No.5 is, would
certainly prejudice any delinquent as it
would
have
done
the
petitioner
in
effectively
defending
himself.
Nevertheless, the petitioner has answered
the
charges
and
an
inquiry
report
submitted.

24. There is one singular flaw, so
far as the impugned order goes, and that is,
its cryptic nature and the absence of
reasons. At the end of a long-winded
description of the two Charges, Nos.3 and
5, of which the petitioner has been held
guilty, his defence, the opinion of the
Inquiry Officer and the objections of the
petitioner,
all
that
is
said
by
the
Disciplinary
Authority,
is
an
abrupt
conclusion sans reasons, that reads:

"जांच आख्या एिं अन्द्य सुसंगत
अभिलेखों में िभणात तथ्यों के आलोक में परीक्षणोपरान्द्त
अपचारी अभधकारी द्वारा उपलब्ध कराये गये उपरोक्त
उत्तर को संतोषजनक निीं पाया गया। अतः सम्यक्
भिचारोपरान्द्त डॉ० एन०एन० भमश्रा, उपायुक्त (स्क्ितः
रोजगार), जनपि-प्रतापगढ़ को 'पररभनन्द्िा' का िण्ड िेते
िुए उनके भिरूद्ध संभस्क्थत अनुिासभनक कायािािी को
समाप्त भकये जाने के आिेि एति्द्वारा श्री राज्यपाल
प्रिान करती िैं। उक्त िण्ड मा० उच्च न्द्यायालय,
इलािाबाि में योभजत ररट याभचका संख्या-4333/
2022 स्त्री मभिला स्क्ियं सिायता समूि बनाम उ०प्र०
राज्य ि अन्द्य में पाररत िोने िाले अंभतम भनणाय के
अधीन िोगा।"
25. There is absolutely nothing to
show as to what reasons have prevailed
with the Disciplinary Authority on the basis
of evidence on record to reach the
conclusions that he did. It is, therefore,
difficult to judge the validity of the order
impugned, testing it on principles by which
its
validity
may
be
assessed.
The
imperative of furnishing reasons in an
order, that is quasi judicial in nature, or
even administrative, if it determines rights
of parties and has civil consequences,
cannot be underestimated, much less
discounted.

26. In Mahabir Prasad Santosh
Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (1970)
1 SCC 764, the necessity to give reasons
for an authority acting in a quasi judicial
capacity or even an executive authority,
whose decision would affect rights of
parties was emphasized by the Supreme
Court in the following words:

"6. From the materials on
the record it cannot be determined
as to who considered the appeal
addressed to the State Government,
and what was considered by the
authority
exercising
power
on
behalf of the State Government.
The practice of the executive
authority
dismissing
statutory
appeals against orders which prima
facie seriously prejudice the rights
of the aggrieved party without
giving reasons is a negation of the
rule of law. This Court had
occasion to protest against this
practice in several decisions: see
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v.
Union of India [(1966) 1 SCR 466]
(per Subba Rao, J.); Bhagat Raja v.
Union of India [(1967) 3 SCR 302]
; State of M.P. v. Seth Narsinghdas
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Jankidas Mehta [ CA No. 621 of
1966, decided on April 29, 1969] ;
State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav
Natha [ CA No. 723 of 1966,
decided on April 21, 1969] ; and
Prag Das Umar Vaishya v. Union of
India [ CA No. 657 of 1965,
decided on August 17, 1967] . The
power of the District Magistrate
was quasi-judicial: exercise of the
power of the State Government was
subject to the supervisory power of
the High Court under Article 227 of
the
Constitution
and
of
the
appellate power of this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution. The
High Court and this Court would be
placed under a great disadvantage
if no reasons are given, and the
appeal
is
dismissed
without
recording and communicating any
reasons.
7. Opportunity to a party
interested in the dispute to present
his case on questions of law as well
as fact, ascertainment of facts from
materials before the Tribunal after
disclosing the materials to the party
against whom it is intended to use
them,
and
adjudication
by
a
reasoned judgment upon a finding
of the facts in controversy and
application of the law to the facts
found, are attributes of even a
quasi-judicial
determination.
It
must appear not merely that the
authority entrusted with quasijudicial authority has reached a
conclusion on the problem before
him: it must appear that he has
reached a conclusion which is
according to law and just, and for
ensuring that end he must record
the ultimate mental process leading
from the dispute to its solution.
Satisfactory decision of a disputed
claim may be reached only if it be
supported by the most cogent
reasons that appeal to the authority.
Recording of reasons in support of
a decision on a disputed claim by a
quasi-judicial authority ensures that
the decision is reached according to
law and is not the result of caprice,
whim or fancy or reached on
grounds of policy or expediency. A
party to the dispute is ordinarily
entitled to know the grounds on
which the authority has rejected his
claim. If the order is subject to
appeal, the necessity to record
reasons is greater, for without
recorded reasons the Appellate
Authority has no material on which
it may determine whether the facts
were properly ascertained, the
relevant law was correctly applied
and the decision was just."

27. Tested on the anvil of well
settled principles about what may be
considered a valid order of punishment
passed by a Disciplinary Authority, the
impugned order cannot be sustained
because it is utterly cryptic and laconic. We
hold accordingly.

28. So far as the findings of the
Inquiry Officer on Charges Nos.3 and 5 are
concerned, it would be appropriate to
consider each of them separately to find out
if there is any perversity or manifest
illegality about them. In holding the
petitioner guilty on Charge No.3, the
Inquiry Officer has recorded the following
finding:

"िासन
के
भनिेिानुसार
आई०सी०डी०एस० के अन्द्तगात स्क्ियं सिायता समूिों
द्वारा आई०सी०डी०एस० केन्द्रों पर ड्राई रािन
12 All. Nagendra Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
633
पिुॅ चाने / भितरण का काया भकया जा रिा िै। जनपि
प्रतापगढ़ में माि अक्टूबर, 2020 तक कुल 1155
स्क्ियं सिायता समूिों के सापेक्ष मात्र 02 स्क्ियं सिायता
समूिों के बैंक भडटेकस भिनांक 11 फरिरी, 2022
तक पोटाल पर फीड करते िुए िेररफाई भकया गया िै।
अपचारी
अभधकारी
द्वारा
आई०सी०डी०एस०
योजनान्द्तगात ड्राई रािन भितरण जैसे मित्िपूणा योजना
का भरयान्द्ियन ससमय सम्पाभित निीं कराया गया। इसी
प्रकार स्क्ियं सिायता समूि से जुड़ी मभिलाओं द्वारा
भितररत भकये गये ड्राई रािन के सापेक्ष पाररश्रभमक
धनराभि के िुगतान िेतु बैंक खाते का भडटेकस पोटाल
पर अपलोड / िेरीफाई कर, उच्च स्क्तर से भनभिाष्ट भकये
जाने के बाि िी अपचारी अभधकारी द्वारा अपेभक्षत रूभच
निीं ली गयी, भजससे योजना के भरयान्द्ियन में भिलम्ब
िोना प्रतीत िोता िै भजसके भलए अपर मुख्य सभचि,
ग्राम्य भिकास अनुिाग-1, उ०प्र० िासन के आिेि
संख्या आर - 20 / 38-1-2022-3508 /
2022 भिनांक 11.02.2022 द्वारा अपचारी
अभधकारी को प्रभतकूल प्रभिभष्ट भनगात की गई िै।
अपचारी अभधकारी द्वारा अपने उत्तर /
स्क्पष्टीकरण में यि उकलेख भकया गया िै भक माि
अक्टूबर 2020 के सापेक्ष 11 फरिरी, 2022 तक
1155 स्क्ियं सिायता समूिों की मैभपंग के सापेक्ष
958 समूिों की मैंभपग़ की गई थी तथा मात्र 02 स्क्ियं
सिायता समूिों के बैंक भडटेकस पोटाल पर फीड करते
िुए िेरीफाई भकया गया िै तथा िेष 197 समूिों की
मैभपंग एिं 1153 समूिों के बैंक भडटेकस पोटाल पर
फीड करने के सम्बन्द्ध में तकनीकी समस्क्या का कारण
बताते िुए प्रभतरक्षा साक्ष्य - 18 एिं 18 / 1 संलग्न
भकया िै।

अपचारी अभधकारी द्वारा ड्राई रािन भितरण
योजना का काया कर रिे स्क्ियं सिायता समूिों की पोटाल
पर भनधााररत अिभध में मैभपंग एिं उनके बैंक खाते
पोटाल पर अपलोड करते िुए िेरीफाई करने में पयााप्त
रूभच निीं भलया जाना प्रतीत िोता िै, भजसके कारण से
ऐसी भस्क्थभत उत्पन्द्न िुई। अपचारी अभधकारी द्वारा अपने
बचाि में ड्राई रािन भितररत करने ि स्क्ियं सिायता
समूिों के बैंक खातों का भडटेकस पोटाल पर अपलोड /
िेरीफाई करते िुए अद्यतन भस्क्थभत से िी अिगत कराने
िेतु कोई साक्ष्य िी निीं प्रस्क्तुत भकया गया िै।
इस प्रकरण पर अपर मुख्य सभचि, ग्राम्य
भिकास अनुिाग-1, उ0प्र0 िासन के आिेि संख्या
आर-20 / 38-1-2022-3508 / 2022
भिनांक 11.02.2022 द्वारा िी गई प्रभतकूल प्रभिभष्ट
एिं अपचारी अभधकारी द्वारा अपने बचाि में अद्यतन
भस्क्थभत से िी अिगत कराने िेतु कोई साक्ष्य िी निीं
प्रस्क्तुत भकया गया िै, भजससे अपचारी अभधकारी को
उक्त आरोप के सम्बन्द्ध में िोष मुक्त भकये जाने पर
भिचार भकया जा सके।
अतः आरोप संख्या-3 अपचारी अभधकारी
के ऊपर भसद्ध पाया गया।"

29. The learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner urged that an inquiry had
already been held in respect of the subject
matter of Charge No.3 and an adverse entry
awarded to the petitioner, against which his
representation
is
pending
before
the
Principal Secretary. The submission is that
on the same charge, another adverse entry
(the censure) could not have been awarded.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 and 2, the stand taken in
paragraph No.10 is that due to lack of
interest shown by the petitioner in the
verification and uploading of the mapped
self-help groups engaged in important
tasks, like dry ration distribution under the
Integrated Child Development Scheme (for
short, 'ICDS') and bank accounts of such
groups on the portal meant for the purpose,
the progress of the scheme remained very
slow. It is then said that for this laxity, an
adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner.
The stand in paragraph No.10 of the
counter affidavit further is that an adverse
entry is a negative evaluation of the
employee's work, which does not fall into
the category of punishment, whereas the
censure now awarded for the same
omission/ misconduct is a measure of
punishment
awarded
in
disciplinary
proceedings.
634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30. This Court may say that the
contention of the respondents during
hearing, which is in accord with their stand
in the counter affidavit, is well founded.

31. An adverse entry is a general
evaluation of an employee's work and
performance, which is invariably entered in
his Annual Confidential Report (for, 'the
ACR'). It is certainly not a punishment
meted out after disciplinary proceedings.
By contrast, a censure is a punishment, that
is awarded after disciplinary proceedings. It
is quite possible that for the same act/
omission/ laxity, the employee may be
given an adverse remark in his ACR and
then charge-sheeting the employee for the
same omission/ misconduct, disciplinary
proceedings may be initiated, where the
punishment of censure may be awarded,
like any other.

32. It may be true that for the same
imputed omission, the petitioner has been
awarded an adverse entry in his ACR and
then proceeded with by the respondents in
their disciplinary jurisdiction, where after
holding inquiry, on the basis of the report
submitted, the Disciplinary Authority has
awarded a censure. This is not a case of the
petitioner
being
punished
twice
or
proceeded with against twice for the same
misconduct. The contention of the learned
Senior Advocate on this point, therefore, is
not tenable.

33. The next point urged by the
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
is that the findings holding the petitioner
guilty of Charge No.3 is based on a
perverse view of the evidence, one
recorded without consideration of relevant
material, and, rather, consideration of
irrelevant
material. The
findings
are
manifestly illegal. Charge No.3 has two
parts to it. The first is that out of 1155 selfhelp groups associated with the ICDS in
District Pratapgarh and engaged in the
work of delivering ration to the ICDS
Centres or distribution of that ration, two of
these groups alone had their bank details
posted on the portal after verification up to
11.02.2022.