# Naipal Singh v. U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 913
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-12
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 2000885 of 2005
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naipal-singh-v-u-p-housing-development-board-anr-53467
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Principles of Natural Justice - Enquiry vitiated
for non-supply of documents, non-holding of
oral enquiry, and ignoring reply of delinquent -
Punishment of dismissal at fag end of retirement
- Disproportionate.

Held: Departmental enquiry must be conducted
strictly in accordance with prescribed procedure
under Regulation 27 of the 1966 Regulations.
Non-supply of relied upon documents, nonfixing of date for oral enquiry, and failure to
allow cross-examination vitiates proceedings.
Where enquiry officer exonerated the delinquent
from 6 of 8 charges, yet disciplinary authority
imposed major penalty of dismissal without
dealing with explanation to the two partially
proved charges, the punishment order is illegal
and disproportionate. Since the employee died
during pendency of writ petition, no purpose
would be served by remand. Dismissal order
quashed. Widow of petitioner entitled to all
service and retiral benefits with 8% interest,
rising to 12% penal interest in case of default.

Writ Petition Allowed.
Case Law Discussed:

## Text

5 All. Naipal Singh Vs. U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr.
913
(2025) 5 ILRA 913
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 2000885 of 2005

Naipal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravindra Kumar, Gaurav Mehrotra, K.N.
Vishwakarma, Rani Singh, Ravindra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
R.K. Mehrotra, Anurag Srivastava, Mahesh
Chandra, Manoj Singh, O P Srivastava,
Puneet Chandra

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Principles of Natural Justice - Enquiry vitiated
for non-supply of documents, non-holding of
oral enquiry, and ignoring reply of delinquent -
Punishment of dismissal at fag end of retirement
- Disproportionate.

Held: Departmental enquiry must be conducted
strictly in accordance with prescribed procedure
under Regulation 27 of the 1966 Regulations.
Non-supply of relied upon documents, nonfixing of date for oral enquiry, and failure to
allow cross-examination vitiates proceedings.
Where enquiry officer exonerated the delinquent
from 6 of 8 charges, yet disciplinary authority
imposed major penalty of dismissal without
dealing with explanation to the two partially
proved charges, the punishment order is illegal
and disproportionate. Since the employee died
during pendency of writ petition, no purpose
would be served by remand. Dismissal order
quashed. Widow of petitioner entitled to all
service and retiral benefits with 8% interest,
rising to 12% penal interest in case of default.

Writ Petition Allowed.
Case Law Discussed:

1. Bhagat Ram Vs St. of H.P., (1983) 2 SCC 442.

2. Ranjit Thakur Vs U.O.i., (1987) 4 SCC 611.

3. U.O.I. Vs Giriraj Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC
755.

4. S.K. Giri Vs Home Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 519.

5. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of India, (1995) 6
SCC 749.

6. Bishan Singh Vs St. of Pun., (1996) 10 SCC
461.

7. Bhaskar Parashari Vs Board of Directors,
Aligarh Gramin Bank, (2005) 5 AWC 4845 (All).

8. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank,
(2009) 2 SCC 570.

9. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2
SCC 772.

10. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs St. of Gujarat, (2013) 4
SCC 301.

11. Satyendra Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3325.

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

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted
by Ms. Rani Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned
counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The order under challenge is a
dismissal order dated 29.7.2004 (contained
as Annexure no. 1) passed by the opposite
party no. 2, i.e. Housing Commissioner,
U.P. Housing and Development Board,
Lucknow.

3. Before adverting to the facts and
merits of this case it is to indicate that the
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner Naipal Singh who filed this writ
petition has died and his wife Smt. Karuna
Singh has been substituted on 25.7.2022.

4. It is also relevant to indicate that
the judgment and order of this Court was
reserved on 2.11.2022 and the same was
pronounced on 29.5.2023 dismissing the
writ petition vide judgment and order dated
29.5.2023. Challenging the judgment and
order dated 29.5.2023, Special Appeal No.
402 of 2023 was filed before the Division
Bench of this Court and the Division Bench
disposed of the special appeal finally vide
order dated 10.8.2023 setting aside the
judgment and order dated 29.5.2023
remanding back the matter to the writ court
to decide this writ petition afresh.

5. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra has submitted
that the impugned dismissal order has been
passed
on
the
basis
of
defective
departmental inquiry inasmuch as the
departmental
inquiry
has
not
been
conducted and concluded as per procedure
prescribed.

6. The enquiry conducted by the
enquiry officer is in complete violation
of principles of natural justice and also
the relevant service rules on account of
the fact that the deceased Petitioner was
never served with copies of document
on the basis of which the charges were
framed against the deceased Petitioner
along with the charge-sheet dated
30.07.2002. As a matter of fact, even
after several requests were made by the
deceased Petitioner vide his letters
dated
07.07.2004,
14.07.2004,
16.7.2004 and 19.07.2004, no heed was
paid by the enquiry officer to either
provide with the documents or reply to
the requests made by the deceased
Petitioner.

7. Sri Mehrotra has submitted that
from bare perusal of the enquiry report
dated 22.04.2004 submitted by the enquiry
officer, it is not borne out that the
Interregnum reply sent by the deceased
Petitioner, under anticipation that the
documents along with the charge-sheet
dated 30.07.2002 would be provided by the
enquiry officer, has been taken into account
and considered by the enquiry officer while
submitting
his
enquiry
report
dated
22.04.2004.

8. The relevant provisions governing
the services of the deceased Petitioner are
Conditions of Service of Officers and
Servants of the Board Regulations, 1966
(hereinafter referred to as "Regulations,
1966" for the sake of brevity) wherein an
elaborate procedure has been enumerated in
Regulation 27 of Regulations, 1966 for
conducting disciplinary proceedings against
a delinquent employee. For ease of perusal
and kind consideration of this Hon'ble
Court, Regulation 27 of Regulations, 1966,
is herein below:

"27. (1) No order on an officer or
servant of the Board any of the penalties
specified in clauses (e) to (g) of regulation
25 shall be passed except after an inquiry,
held as far as may be, in the manner
hereinafter provided.

(2) The disciplinary authority
shall frame definite charges on the basis of
the allegations on which the inquiry is
proposed to be held. Such charges.
together with a Statement of the allegations
on
which
they
based,
shall
be
communicated in writing to the officer or
servant and be shall be required to submit,
within such time as may be specified by the
disciplinary authority, a written statement
of his defence and also to state whether he
desires to be heard in person.
5 All. Naipal Singh Vs. U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr.
915

Explanation:
In
this
subregulation and in sub-regulation (3) the
expression "the disciplinary authority shall
included the authority competent under
these regulations to to impose any of the
penalties in clauses (a) to (d) of regulation
25.

(3) The officer or servant of the
Board shall, for the purpose of preparing
his defence, be permitted to inspect and
take extracts from such official records as
he may specify, provided that such
permission may be refused, if, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of
the disciplinary authority such records are
not relevant for the purpose or it is against
the public interest to allow him access
thereto.

(4) On receipt of the written
statement of defence, or if no such
statement is received within the time
specified, the disciplinary authority may
itself inquire into such of the charges as
are not admitted, or, if it considers it
necessary so to do, appoint a Board of
Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer for the
purpose.

(5) The disciplinary authority
may also nominate any person to present
the case in support of the charges before
the authority inquiring into the charges
(hereinafter eferred to as the inquiring
authority). The Officer or servant of the
Board may present his case with the
assistance of any other officer or servant of
the Board approved by the disciplinary
authority. Neither the Board not its officer
or servant shall be entitled to be
represented by a counsel.

(6) The inquiring authority shall,
in the course of the enquiry, consider such
documentary evidence and take such oral
evidence as may be relevant or material in
regard to the charges. The Officer or
servant of the Board shall be entitled to
cross-examing
witnesses
examined
in
support of the charges and to give evidence
in person. The person presenting the case
in support of the charges shall be entitled
to cross-examine the officer or servant of
the Board and the witnesses examined in
his defence. If the enquiring authority
declines to examine any witness on the
ground that is evidence is not relevant or
material, it shall record its reasons in
writing

(7) At the conclusion of the
enquiry, the inquiring authority shall
prepare a report of the inquiry, recording
its findings on each of the charges together
with reasons therefore. If in the opinion of
such authority the proceedings of the
inquiry establish charges different from
those originally framed, it may record
findings on such charges provided that
finding on such charges shall not be
recorded unless the officer or servant of the
Board has admitted the facts constituting
them or has had an opportunity of
defending himself against them.

(8)The record of the inquiry shall
include -

(1) the charges framed against
the Officer or servant and the statement of
allegations furnished to him under subregulations (2):

(i) his written statement of
defence, if any.

(ii) the oral evidence taken in the
course of the inquiry.

(iv) the documentary evidence
considered in the course of the inquiry.

(v) the orders, if any, made by the
disciplinary authority and the inquiring
authority in regard to the inquiry, and (vi)
a report setting out the findings on each
charge and the reason thereafter.

(9) The disciplinary authority
shall, if is not the inquiring authority,
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consider the record of the inquiry and
record its findings on each charge.

(10)(i)
If
the
disciplinary
authority, having regard to its finding on
the charges, of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in clause (e) to (g) of
regulation 25 should be imposed it shall

(a) furnish to the officer or
servant a copy if the report of the inquiring
authority and, where the disciplinary
authority is not the inquiry authority a
statement of its findings together with brief
reasons for disagreement, if any, with the
findings of the authority having regard to
its findings is of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in clauses (a) to (d) of
regulation 25 should be imposed, it shall
pass appropriate orders in the case.

(b) give him a notice stating the
action proposed to be taken in regard to
him and calling upon him to submit within
a specified time such representation as he
may wish to make against the propose
action.

(ii) The disciplinary authority
shall consider the representation, if any.
made by the officer or servant in response
to thee (1) and determine what penalty, if
any, should be imposed on the officer or
servant and pass appropriate orders in the
case.

(11) If the disciplinary authority
having regard to its findings is of the
opinion that any of the penalties specified
in clauses (a) to (d) of regulation 25 should
be imposed, it shall pass appropriate
orders in the case.

(12)
Orders
passed
by
the
disciplinary
authority
shall
be
communicated to the officer or servant who
shall also be supplied with a copy of the
report of the inquiring authority and where
the disciplinary authority is not the
inquiring authority, a statement of its
findings together with the brief reasons for
disagreement if any with the findings of the
inquiring authority unless
they have
already been supplied to him."

9.

Regulation
27
of
1966,
Regulations
provides
for
the
due
procedure which is required to be adhered
to
by
the
enquiry
officer
while
conducting disciplinary procedure against
the delinquent employee.

10. Regulation 27(3) of 1966
Regulation explicitly provides that after
serving of statement of allegation/chargesheet upon the delinquent employee, for the
purpose of preparing his defence, the
delinquent employee be permitted to
inspect and take extract of such official
report as he may specify. It is further
provided in regulation 27(3) of 1966
regulation that such request for permission
to inspect and to take extract of such
official reports may be refused for the
reasons to be recorded in writing. However,
in the instant matter undisputedly despite
several
requests
and
reminders
for
providing documents on the basis whereof
the charges were framed in the chargesheet dated 30.07.2002 were neither
provided nor any refusal was provided in
writing to the deceased Petitioner which is
in clear defiance of Regulation 27(3) of
1966 regulations.

11. Sri Mehrotra has submitted that
despite
several
request
to
provide
documents on the basis of which charges
were
framed
against
the
deceased
Petitioner,
the
documents
were
not
provided. It is well settled that an employee
facing a departmental enquiry is entitled to
all the relevant statements, documents and
other materials to enable him to have a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself in
the departmental enquiry.
5 All. Naipal Singh Vs. U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr.
917

12. Regulation 27(6) of 1966
Regulation provides that the enquiry
officer, in the course of enquiry shall
consider oral evidence in regards to
charges. The delinquent employee shall be
entitled
to
cross
examine
witnesses
examined in support of the charges and to
give evidence in person. If the enquiry
officer declines to examine any witnesses
on the ground that the evidence is not
relevant or material then it shall be
recorded in writing.

13. Sri Mehrotra has submitted that in
the instant matter from enquiry report dated
22.04.2004 makes it evident that the
enquiry was not conducted in accordance to
regulation 27(6) of the 1966 regulations
inasmuch as oral enquiry has not at all been
held, no witnesses have been examined/
cross examined. Therefore, the enquiry
report prepared by the enquiry officer is
completely vitiated.

14. As per Regulation 27(8) of the
Regulations 1966, the record of inquiry
shall include the charges framed against the
officer or servant and the statement of
allegations furnished to him under subregulation (2), written statement of defence,
oral evidence taken in the course of
inquiry,
the
documentary
evidence
considered in the course of inquiry, the
orders, if any made by the disciplinary
authority and the inquiring authority in
regard to the inquiry and a report setting
out the findings on each charge and reason
thereafter. However, in the instant matter
the inquiry report does not conform to the
mandate of Regulation 27 (8) as the
necessary ingredients of the enquiry report
as mandated in Regulation 27 (8) are
missing in the enquiry report dated
22.04.2004.

15. In the enquiry report dated
22.04.2004 in present matter, the deceased
Petitioner was exonerated from six charges
out of the eight charges levelled against
him. Only two charges i.e. charge no 3 and
charge no. 6 out of total eight charges
levelled against the deceased Petitioner
have been found allegedly proved against
the deceased Petitioner. For ease of perusal
and kind consideration of this Hon'ble
Court Charge No. 3 and 6 are reproduced
herein under:

"...................

आरोप संख्या-3 :- (शिलान्यास
तथा मूर्ति स्थापना पर व्यय) -

इस मद में आरोप है कक
सशलान्यास एवं मूनतत हेतु न तो प्रारण्मभक
आगर्न में कोई प्रावधान र्ा और न ही
शासन द्वारा दी गयी प्रशासननक स्वीकृनत
में। इसके बावजूद उक्त मद में 14.32 लाि
की धनरासश व्यय कर दी गयी तर्ा कायत
के समाप्त हो जाने के पश्चात् भी उक्त
हेतु कोई औपचाररक स्वीकृनत प्राप्त नहीं
की गयी।

उक्त में पररषद सेवा शाई-1006
के ववननयम-48 (1) प. (2) के अनुरूप
आचरर् प्रदसशत करने के सलए आप दोषी
हैं।

आरोप संख्या-6:- (वाच एम वार्ि
कायों पर अर्नयशमतता बरतना)-इस मद में
अपचारी पर यह आरोप है कक इन्होंने बगैर
ककसी स्वीकृनत व प्राववधान के जनपद
अमबेिकर नगर के ननमातर्ाधीन कलेक्रेट
तर्ा आवासीय भवनों के कायों पर बाच एवं
918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
वाित के कायों पर रू. 19.20 लाि की
धनरासश व्यय करके शासन को आथर्तक
हानन पहुंचागी तर्ा पररषद की छवव धूसमल
की। इसके सलए आप पूर्तः दोषी हैं।

16. Sri Mehrotra has submitted with
vehemence that instead of considering the
case
of
the
deceased
Petitioner
compassionately, particularly when the
Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report
dated
22.04.2004
had
completely
exonerated the Petitioner from charge no.
(i) charge no. (ii), Charge no. (iv), Charge
no. (v), Charge no. (vii) and charge no.
(viii)
levelled
against
the
deceased
Petitioner
in
the
charge-sheet
dated
30.07.2002, while the charge no. (iii) and
Charge no. (vi) was found to be allegedly
proven against the deceased Petitioner and
against which the deceased Petitioner had
submitted his reply dated 27.07.2004, the
Respondent No.2 in a most arbitrary and
illegal
manner,
without
considering
contentions of deceased petitioner raised in
the reply dated 27.07.2004, against the charge
no. (iii) and charge No. (iv) levelled in the
charge-sheet dated 30.07.2002, which was
allegedly found proven by the Enquiry
Officer in the Enquiry Report dated
22.04.2004 has proceeded to award major
penalty of dismissal of service that too two
days prior to the retirement of the deceased
Petitioner, which is not only grossly
disproportionate vis-à-vis the alleged charges
levelled against the deceased Petitioner but
also
reeks
of
malice
and
deliberate
victimization of the deceased Petitioner,

17. Further, the impugned order dated
29.07.2004 i.e. dismissal from service goes
on to show that the impugned order dated
29.07.2004 was passed without assigning
good and sufficient reasons.

18. Sri Mehrotra has also submitted
that it is settled principle of law that in case
the
quantum
of
punishment
is
so
disproportionate to the gravity of the
offence that it shocks the conscience of the
Hon'ble Court, it is liable to be set aside. It
is a law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that if the punishment
awarded is disproportionate to the gravity
of the misconduct, it would be arbitrary and
thus would violate the mandate of Article
14 of the Constitution, hence being illegal,
it cannot be enforced. The aforesaid contention
of the Petitioner is based on catena of
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India as well as this Hon'ble Court, few of
such judgments are reported in (1983) 2 SCC
442 in re: Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh; (1987) 4 SCC 611 in re: Ranjit
Thakur v. Union of India and Ors.; 1994
Supp (3) SCC 755 in re: Union of India v.
Giriraj Sharma; 1995 Supp (3) SCC 519 in
re: S.K. Giri v. Home Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs and Ors.; (1995) 6 SCC 749 in
re: BC Chaturvedi v. Union of India and
(1996) 10 SCC 461 in re: Bishan Singh and
Ors. vs. State of Punjab, and reported in
(2005) 5 AWC 4845 ALL in re: Bhaskar
Parashari Vs. Board of Directors, Aligarh
Gramin Bank and Others.

19.
 Sri
Gaurav
Mehrotra
has
submitted that so far as charge no. 3 and 6
are considered on its face value, the
petitioner may not be held responsible for
those charges as he had categorically
explained this fact in his reply dated
27.7.2004. However, without considering
the explanation of the petitioner the
disciplinary authority incorrectly held that
those two charges are proved against the
petitioner.

20. To strengthen the aforesaid
arguments, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra has placed
5 All. Naipal Singh Vs. U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr.
919
reliance of the recent judgment of the Apex
Court in re: Satyendra Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 3325 thereby the
Apex Court has held that the enquiry
proceedings should be conducted strictly as
per the procedure prescribed and if the
enquiry is conducted dehors the procedure,
that would be nullity in the eyes of law. In
the aforesaid judgment couple of relevant
judgments of the Apex Court on the subject
matter have been considered.

21. Per contra, Sri Puneet Chandra,
learned counsel for the respondents tried to
defend the impugned order but he could not
defend the impugned order properly
inasmuch as he could not demonstrate that
the
inquiry
proceedings
have
been
conducted strictly as per the procedure
prescribed. He could also not defend as to
why the specific explanation of the
petitioner given in respect of charge no. 3
and 6 has not been considered by the
disciplinary authority inasmuch as no
findings thereon have been returned in the
impugned order. Though Sri Chandra has
stated that the reply to the show cause
notice dated 24.7.2004 received in the
office of 30.7.2004 whereas the punishment
order was already passed on 29.7.2004,
therefore,
it
could
have
not
been
considered.

22. On being further confronted
showing the impugned order wherein in
respect of Charge no. 3 and 6 only this
much has been alleged that the charged
employee should have taken proper care
and precaution, therefore, he is only
responsible for slackness in discharging his
duties, as to why the major punishment of
dismissal has been awarded to him at the
fag end of his retirement, Sri Chandra
could not explain the reason awarding
major punishment to the petitioner. So Sri
Chandra could not defend the punishment
order on the plea of being disproportionate
as it does not commensurate with gravity of
misconduct.

23. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, at the very outset, I
would like to consider para 13, 14,
15,16,17 and 18 in re: Satyendra Singh
(supra)
wherein
the
Apex
Court
considering the earlier judgments held that
the
departmental
enquiry
should
be
conducted as per procedure prescribed and
disciplinary authority may pass any order
strictly in accordance with law. The paras
no. 13,14,15,16.17 and 18 in re: Satyendra
Singh (supra) are as under :

"13. This Court in a catena of
judgments has held that the recording of
evidence in a disciplinary proceeding
proposing charges of a major punishment
is mandatory. Reference in this regard may
be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab
National Bank and Nirmala J. Jhala v.
State of Gujarat.

14. In the case of Roop Singh
Negi, this Court held that mere production
of documents is not enough, contents of
documentary evidence have to be proved by
examining witnesses.
Relevant
extract
thereof reads as under:-

"14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
The enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function. The charges levelled
against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved. The enquiry
officer has a duty to arrive at a finding
upon
taking
into
consideration
the
materials brought on record by the parties.
The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against all the accused by itself could not
be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to
prove the said documents. The management
witnesses merely tendered the documents
and did not prove the contents thereof.
Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the
enquiry officer on the FIR which could not
have been treated as evidence.

15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence
whereupon reliance has been placed by the
enquiry
officer
was
the
purported
confession made by the appellant before
the police. According to the appellant, he
was forced to sign on the said confession,
as he was tortured in the police station. The
appellant being an employee of the Bank,
the said confession should have been
proved. Some evidence should have been
brought on record to show that he had
indulged in stealing the bank draft book.
Admittedly, there was no direct evidence.
Even there was no indirect evidence. The
tenor of the report demonstrates. that the
enquiry officer had made up his mind to
find him guilty as otherwise he would not
have proceeded on the basis that the
offence was committed in such a manner
that no evidence was left.

...

19. The judgment and decree
passed against the respondent in Narinder
Mohan Arya case [(2006) 4 SCC 713 2006
SCC (L&S) 840] had attained finality. In
the said suit, the enquiry report in the
disciplinary proceeding was considered,
the same was held to have been based on
no evidence. The appellant therein in the
aforementioned situation filed a writ
petition questioning the validity of the
disciplinary proceeding, the same was
dismissed. This Court held that when a
crucial finding like forgery was arrived at
on evidence which is non est in the eye of
the law, the civil court would have
jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This
Court emphasised that a finding can be
arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is
some evidence on record...."

(emphasis supplied)

15. Same view was reiterated in
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha, 12 wherein, this Court held that
even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of
the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence
presented by the Department to find out
whether
the
unrebutted
evidence
is
sufficient to hold that the charges are
proved. The relevant observations made in
Saroj Kumar Sinha are as follows:-

"28. An inquiry officer acting in a
quasi-judicial authority is in the position of
an independent adjudicator. He is not
supposed to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to
examine the evidence presented by the
Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold
that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been
proved, and could not have been taken
into consideration to conclude that the
charges have been proved against the
respondents.

33. As noticed earlier in the
present case not only the respondent has
been denied access to documents sought to
be relied upon against him, but he has been
condemned unheard as the inquiry officer
failed to fix any date for conduct of the
enquiry. In other words, not a single
witness has been examined in support of
the
charges
levelled
against
the
respondent. The High Court. therefore, has
rightly observed that the entire proceedings
5 All. Naipal Singh Vs. U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr.
921
are vitiated having been conducted in
complete violation of the principles of
natural justice and total disregard of fair
play. The respondent never had any
opportunity at any stage of the proceedings
to offer an explanation against the
allegations made in the charge-sheet."

(emphasis supplied)

16. In the case of Nirmala J.
Jhalad, this Court held that evidence
recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot
be used for a regular inquiry as the
delinquent is not associated with it and the
opportunity
to
cross-examine
persons
examined in preliminary inquiry is not
given. Relevant extract thereof reads as
under:-

"42. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern
Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992], held that the
purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in
respect of a particular alleged misconduct
is only for the purpose of finding a
particular fact and prima facie, to know as
to whether the alleged misconduct has been
committed and on the basis of the findings
recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order
of punishment can be passed. It may be
used only to take a view as to whether a
regular disciplinary proceeding against the
delinquent is required to be held.

43. Similarly in Champaklal
Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India [AIR
1964 SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this
Court while taking a similar view held that
preliminary inquiry should not be confused
with regular inquiry. The preliminary
inquiry is not governed by the provisions of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte,
for it is merely for the satisfaction of the
Government though usually for the sake of
fairness, an explanation may be sought
from the government servant even at such
an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no
right to be heard as the inquiry is merely
for the satisfaction of the Government as to
whether a regular inquiry must be held.
The Court further held as under: (AIR p.
1862, para 12)

"12. There must therefore be no
confusion between the two enquiries and it
is only when the government proceeds to
hold a departmental enquiry for the
purpose of inflicting on the government
servant one of the three major punishments
indicated
in
Article
311
that
the
government servant is entitled to the
protection of that article 1. nor prior to
that]."

44.
In
Narayan
Dattatraya
Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra
[(1997) 1 SCC 299 1997 SCC (L&S) 152
AIR 1997 SC 2148] this Court dealt with
the issue and held as under:

"... a preliminary inquiry has
nothing to do with the enquiry conducted
after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary
enquiry is only to find out whether
disciplinary enquiry should be initiated
against the delinquent. Once regular
enquiry is held under the Rules, the
preliminary enquiry loses its importance
and, whether preliminary enquiry was held
strictly in accordance with law or by
observing principles of natural justice of
(sic) nor, remains of no consequence."

45. In view of the above, it is
evident that the evidence recorded in
preliminary inquiry cannot be used in
regular inquiry as the delinquent is not
associated with it, and opportunity to
cross-examine the persons examined in
such inquiry is not given. Using such
evidence would be violative of the
principles of natural justice.

(emphasis supplied)

17. Thus, even in an ex-parte
inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the
evidence of the witnesses for proving the
922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charges. Having tested the facts of the case
at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of
1999, and the law as expounded by this
Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and
Nirmala J. Jhalals, we are of the firm view
that the inquiry proceedings conducted
against the appellant pertaining to charges
punishable with major penalty, were totally
vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since
no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded
by the department in support of the
charges.

18. As a consequence, thereof, the
High Court fell into grave error of law
while interfering in the well-reasoned
judgment
rendered
by
the
Tribunal
whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the
order
imposing
penalty
upon
the
appellant."

24. In view of what has been
considered above, including the case law in
re: Satyendra Singh (supra), I am of the
considered opinion that the departmental
enquiry must be conducted and concluded
strictly as per procedure prescribed and the
disciplinary authority while passing final
order shall ensure that the enquiry officer
has followed the procedure. Thereafter, he
shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the
charged employee providing copy of
enquiry report seeking explanation from
him. He shall return his clear findings on
the explanation of the charged employee in
the final order. The punishment, if any, so
imposed must commensurate with gravity
of misconduct as he must avoid imposing
disproportionate punishment.

25. In the present case, the enquiry
officer has not conducted departmental
enquiry as per procedure prescribed under
Regulation 27 of Regulation 1986 as
neither the copies of relevant / demanded /
relied upon documents have been provided
to the employee nor the date, time and
place has been fixed for oral enquiry to
prove the charges. So the findings of
enquiry officer vitiates for these reasons.
On the basis of this enquiry report no
punishment could have been awarded to the
employee.
At
the
same
time,
the
disciplinary authority has not dealt with
this aspect as no findings have been
returned on these points. It was his legal
duty to go through the enquiry report
carefully but no such effort has been taken
by him. Had he gone through these aspects
lawfully he would have remitted back the
issue for fresh enquiry as per procedure
prescribed.
Even
otherwise,
if
the
disciplinary authority had perused the
enquiry report on charge nos. (iii) and (vi)
which appear to have proved partially, he
would have not awarded major punishment
at the fag end of his retirement.

26. Therefore, the enquiry report and
punishment order are non-est in the eyes of
law as being illegal, arbitrary and uncalled
for in view of facts and circumstances of
the case. Hence, these are liable to set aside
and quashed.

27. Since the charged employee /
petitioner of the writ petition namely,
Naipal Singh has died during the pendency
of the writ petition and his widow is
contesting this writ petition to claim the
dues, therefore, no purpose would be
served to remand back the issue for denovo
departmental
enquiry
as
the
departmental enquiry is admittedly a
defective departmental enquiry.

28. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.

29. A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the order dated 29.7.2004
5 All. Mohd. Talha Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
923
(Annexure no. 1) passed by the opposite
party no. 2.

30. A writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued commanding the
opposite parties to pay all service benefits
including post retiral benefits of charged
employee
i.e.
Naipal
Singh
(since
deceased) to his wife Smt. Karuna Singh
who has been substituted petitioner on
25.7.2022 within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the order of this Court along with interest
@ 8% w.e.f. the date when the aforesaid
benefits accrued till the date of its actual
payment.

31. It is further directed that in case
the aforesaid payments are not paid to the
substituted
petitioner
namely,
Karuna
Singh within time, so stipulated and in the
manner so directed, she shall be entitled for
penal interest @ 12% per annum.

32. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 923
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 1775 of 2025

Mohd. Talha ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arshad Jameel, Mohd. Amir Shazad, Mohd.
Salman

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226,
21
&
19(1)(d)-Passport
Act,1967-Sections
6(2)(f)
&
22-The
petitioner a practicing advocate applied
for a passport -his application was denied
due to the pendency of two criminal cases,
following Umapati ruling-legal issue arise
whether under trial is required to obtain
permission or a No Objection Certificate
from the concerned criminal court for
issuance or renewal of the passport
under the act,1967-Held, The court held
that Section 6(2)(f) of the Act,1967 bars
issuance of passport where criminal
proceedings are pending against the
applicant-However, this restriction is
not
absolute
due
to
the
Central
Government's power under section 22 of
the Act-As per GSR 570(E) dated
25.08.1993,
under
trials
may
be
exempted from this restriction if they
produce orders from the concerned court
permitting them to depart from Indianot
merely
an
NOC-exemption
notification has statutory force and
courts cannot disregard its requirement
by observing that no permission is
needed-The court set aside the earlier
order of the trial court that held such
permission unnecessary and directed the
petitioner

to
seek
fresh
permission.(Para 1 to 29)

B. Doctrine of Per Incuriam: If a judgment
ignores binding precedents or statutory
provisions, it is rendered per incuriam and
does not have binding value. The court
held that the Umapati decision fell into
this category. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Salim Kumar Vs U.O.I. & ors. , W.P. No.
31723(M/B) of 2018

2. Shiv Shankar Vs U.O.I. & ors. , Writ C No.
8621 of 2022

3. Smt. Rashmi Kapoor Vs U.O.I. & ors , Writ C
No. 3617 of 2022