# Puran Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 514
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 17113 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/puran-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52136
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Mr. Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Suresh Singh,
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Suresh C.
Dwivedi, Advocate for respondents Nos. 3
and 4

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
7 - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment -
Censure and withholding of two increment
- Charges may likely to lead major
punishment - No date, time and place was
fixed for oral inquiry - Witnesses of
establishment
could
not
be
crossexamined
-
Effect
-
Held,
in
any
disciplinary matter involving the possible
imposition of a major penalty, it is
imperative for the Establishment to prove
the charges by leading before the Inquiry
Officer evidence, both documentary and
oral - High Court set aside the impugned
punishment
order
giving
liberty
to
Disciplinary Authority to proceed with
enquiry afresh, but with condition that he
cannot impose higher punishment than
that was awarded by the impugned order.
(Para 18, 19 and 23)

B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Role of Inquiry Officer - The Inquiry Officer
cannot
identify
himself
with
the
Establishment and assume the charges to
be proof of themselves - He must require
the Establishment to come forth and
produce evidence through a Presenting
Officer, both documentary and oral, to
prove the charges. It is also imperative that
in
cases
of
possible
major
penalty,
witnesses ought to be examined. After the
Presenting
Officer
leads
evidence,
introducing documents and proving them
through appropriate witnesses, which, in
certain cases, can be the Presenting Officer
himself,
the
witnesses
for
the
Establishment have to be offered for crossexamination
to
the
chargesheeted
employee. It is after the evidence of the
Establishment is over that the chargesheeted
employee
has
to
be
given
opportunity to lead his evidence, which,
again, can be both documentary and oral.
If the chargesheeted employee leads oral
evidence,
that
is
to
say,
produces
witnesses, his witnesses can be crossexamined by the Establishment. (Para 20
and 21)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
5 All. Puran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
515
List of Cases cited:

## Text

514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents do not do any aid to her in a
peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned
here-in-above.

18. In view of the facts as stated
above, the impugned order dated 14.09.2022
cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same
is hereby quashed.

19. The writ petition is allowed,
accordingly.

20. A mandamus is issued to the
authority concerned to permit the petitioner
to discharge his services on the post of
Assistant Teacher and salary shall be paid to
him month to month forthwith. A mandamus
is also issued to authority concerned to give
all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 514
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 17113 of 2023

Puran Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, Mr. Pramod
Kumar Srivastava, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Suresh Singh,
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Suresh C.
Dwivedi, Advocate for respondents Nos. 3
and 4

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
7 - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment -
Censure and withholding of two increment
- Charges may likely to lead major
punishment - No date, time and place was
fixed for oral inquiry - Witnesses of
establishment
could
not
be
crossexamined
-
Effect
-
Held,
in
any
disciplinary matter involving the possible
imposition of a major penalty, it is
imperative for the Establishment to prove
the charges by leading before the Inquiry
Officer evidence, both documentary and
oral - High Court set aside the impugned
punishment
order
giving
liberty
to
Disciplinary Authority to proceed with
enquiry afresh, but with condition that he
cannot impose higher punishment than
that was awarded by the impugned order.
(Para 18, 19 and 23)

B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Role of Inquiry Officer - The Inquiry Officer
cannot
identify
himself
with
the
Establishment and assume the charges to
be proof of themselves - He must require
the Establishment to come forth and
produce evidence through a Presenting
Officer, both documentary and oral, to
prove the charges. It is also imperative that
in
cases
of
possible
major
penalty,
witnesses ought to be examined. After the
Presenting
Officer
leads
evidence,
introducing documents and proving them
through appropriate witnesses, which, in
certain cases, can be the Presenting Officer
himself,
the
witnesses
for
the
Establishment have to be offered for crossexamination
to
the
chargesheeted
employee. It is after the evidence of the
Establishment is over that the chargesheeted
employee
has
to
be
given
opportunity to lead his evidence, which,
again, can be both documentary and oral.
If the chargesheeted employee leads oral
evidence,
that
is
to
say,
produces
witnesses, his witnesses can be crossexamined by the Establishment. (Para 20
and 21)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
5 All. Puran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
515
List of Cases cited:

1. St. of UP & ors.Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010)
2 SCC 772

2. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punj. National Bank & ors.;
(2009) 2 SCC 570

3. St. of Uttaranchal & ors.Vs Kharak Singh;
(2008) 8 SCC 236

4. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Kishori Lal & anr.; 2018
(9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB)

5. Smt. Karuna Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P.; 2018 (9)
ADJ 107 (DB) (LB)

6. St. of U.P. Vs Aditya Prasad Srivastava & anr.;
2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB)

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

This writ petition is directed against the
order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Housing and Urban Planning, Government
of U.P., Lucknow, punishing the petitioner
with the withholding of two increments with
cumulative effect and awarding a censure
after disciplinary proceedings.

2. The facts giving rise to this writ
petition are these :

The petitioner was appointed an
Assistant Engineer by the respondents vide
office order dated 25.08.1987 pursuant to
the
recommendations
of
a
Selection
Committee, along with thirteen others. He
was regularised vide Office Order dated
20.11.2001, along with ten others. The State
Government is the petitioner's appointing
and disciplinary authority. The petitioner
had worked as an Assistant Engineer in
various development authorities and his
services are governed by the Uttar Pradesh
Development
Authorities
Centralised
Service Rules, 19851. The eligibility for
promotion from the post of Executive
Engineer to Superintending Engineer is by
way of 100% promotion. Thus, the cadre of
Executive Engineers in the service governed
by the Rules constitutes the feeding cadre
for the cadre of the Superintending
Engineers. The promotion to the post of a
Superintending Engineer is based upon
seniority subject to rejection of unfit with
satisfactory service of a total period of 12
years, out of which, 5 years have to be put in
on the post of an Executive Engineer. The
petitioner was promoted from the post of an
Assistant Engineer to that of an Executive
Engineer vide Order No. 479 dated
12.05.2015 and posted as such since July,
2017
with
the
Agra
Development
Authority2. By an office order dated
16.01.2020, disciplinary proceedings were
drawn against the petitioner under Rule 33
of the Rules of 1985 read with Rule 7 of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 19993,
charging him prima facie of misconduct. By
the
aforesaid
office
order,
the
Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra was
appointed the Inquiry Officer.

3. A charge-sheet dated 03.02.2020
was served by the Inquiry Officer, carrying
four articles of charges and to prove the
same, no witnesses were cited. Documents
alone were relied upon. The petitioner
submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. The
reply was dated 26.12.2020. The petitioner
denied the charges with details of his
defence regarding all imputations carried in
the charges. It was a detailed defence.

4. In his reply, the petitioner has
segregated Charge No. 1 into Charges Nos.
1A to 1D for the sake of convenience and
urged that he is not responsible, even
remotely,
for
any
dereliction
and
indifference towards his duty. It was
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
emphasized that he is the supervising
authority and for the work allegedly not
completed, the responsibility rests, in the
first instance, with subordinates like the
Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer,
who had not even been called upon to
explain. The petitioner also pleaded in
denial of Charges Nos. 2 and 3, that were
again segregated into Charges Nos. 2A to
2D to 3A to 3D for felicity of defence.

5. In paragraph No. 14 of the writ
petition, it is averred that no date, time and
place was fixed for holding the inquiry by
the Commissioner and in between, several
incumbents changed in the Office of the
Commissioner. This led to an interruption of
the inquiry. It is also averred that no witness
on behalf of the respondents was examined
in support of the charges, nor was the
petitioner called upon to examine himself in
defence. The inquiry concluded, as it is
alleged, in violation of the Rules of 1999 and
the Inquiry Report dated 12.04.2021 was
submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the State
Government, who, on its basis, issued a
show-cause
notice
dated
07.10.2021,
requiring the petitioner to submit his reply.
The Inquiry Officer found Charges Nos. 1
and 4 not proved whereas Charge No. 2 was
found proved. Charge No. 3 was found
partly proved. The petitioner submitted his
reply dated 03.11.2021 to the State
Government, which consisted of, again,
substantial comments, running into 12
pages, together with 32 annexures.

6. It is averred in paragraph No. 17
that in his reply to the show-cause or the
second show-cause, as it is called, the
petitioner raised a plea that no oral inquiry
was held in the sense that no witness was
examined by the Establishment whom the
petitioner could cross-examine before the
Inquiry Officer. The Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Housing and
Urban Planning, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow,
who
acted
for
the
State
Government under the Rules of Business,
taking cognizance of the petitioner's plea
that no oral inquiry was held, issued a memo
dated 31.12.2021 to the petitioner, asking
him to appear in the Secretary's office on
06.01.2022 at 04:00 p.m. for personal/oral
hearing.

7. It is averred in paragraph No. 19
that being satisfied that no personal hearing
and oral inquiry was held by the
Commissioner, and in its absence, the
inquiry report dated 12.04.2021 was bad, the
first respondent issued a letter to the Vice
Chairman of the Development Authority,
directing that the principles of natural justice
ought to be followed and the petitioner
allowed to cross-examine the Assistant
Engineer as well as the Junior Engineer by
getting their statements recorded, after
which, the inquiry report be submitted by
the Vice Chairman to the Secretary. The
petitioner asserts that the Commissioner was
not directed to undertake a fresh inquiry,
who had held the inquiry earlier, but now, it
was entrusted to the Vice Chancellor,
pointing out the deficiency in the earlier
proceedings.

8. It is the petitioner's case at this
stage that there being a procedural lapse in
the inquiry, the State Government ought not
to have switched Inquiry Officers midway
and entrusted it to the Vice Chairman for the
Commissioner. In compliance with the order
of the Secretary, the Vice Chairman held an
inquiry into the matter again and after
recording the statement of the two junior
officers i.e. the Assistant Engineer and the
Junior Engineer, submitted his report dated
18.02.2022, exonerating the petitioner of
Charges nos. 2 and 3 as well, of which he
5 All. Puran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
517
was earlier found guilty and partly guilty.
The Charges Nos. 1 and 4, as it appears, of
which he was exonerated, no finding was
recorded, treating the earlier report to be
subsisting and valid. After submission of the
report by the Vice Chairman, no order upon
the same was passed. Rather, on the basis of
the findings in the inquiry report dated
18.02.2022, explanations were sought from
the Assistant Engineer and the Junior
Engineer vide memos dated 27.12.2022.
The petitioner, apprehending foul play, as
his promotion was due to the post of
Superintending Engineer, where the DPC
was to be held shortly, and there were only
two sanctioned posts in the entire cadre of
centralized services, raised a grievance in
the matter, saying that he would be deprived
of his consideration for the post of
Superintending Engineer.

9. The Additional Chief Secretary,
by the order dated 08.08.2023, proceeded
to award the petitioner the major penalty
of stoppage of his annual increments,
besides the award of a censure. It is the
petitioner's case that the impugned order
takes note of the show-cause notice dated
07.10.2021 issued to the petitioner along
with the inquiry report dated 12.04.2021,
to which the petitioner had submitted a
show-cause on 03.11.2021 as also the fact
that he was afforded a personal hearing on
06.01.2022,
but
ignored
the
later
development of the direction dated
09.02.2022 to hold a re-inquiry addressed
to the Vice-Chairman of the Development
Authority and a further inquiry report
dated 18.02.2022, which exonerated the
petitioner of all charges. No cognizance of
this report has at all been taken. The
petitioner pleads that the Additional Chief
Secretary has erred in ignoring the
relevant inquiry report, which was called
by himself on the petitioner's plea that the
earlier inquiry report's findings where he
was found guilty of one charge and partly
on the other, was one in violation of the
principles of natural justice, which
required a re-inquiry to be held. It is also
pleaded that this is not a case where the
Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the
findings of the Inquiry Officer recorded in
the
later
report
dated
18.02.2022
submitted by the Chairman of the
Development Authority. It is pleaded that
if it were so, he would have caused a
notice to be served framing issues of
disagreement, and after hearing the
petitioner, passed appropriate orders.

10. Aggrieved by the impugned
order dated 08.08.2023, the instant writ
petition has been instituted by the
petitioner.

11. A notice of motion was issued
on 11.10.2023. A counter affidavit was
filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 on
29.11.2023, to which, the petitioner has
filed a rejoinder. Another counter affidavit
dated 17.10.2023 has been filed on behalf
of respondentd Nos. 3 and 4 jointly, and
still another, on behalf of respondent No.
2, the Divisional Commissioner. The
parties having exchanged affidavits, when
the matter came up on 14.12.2023, it was
admitted to hearing, which proceeded
forthwith to conclusion. Judgment was
reserved.

12. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh and
Mr. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned
Counsel for the petitioner in support of this
petition, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Mr. Suresh Singh, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1
and 2, and Mr. Suresh C. Dwivedi, learned
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
Nos. 3 and 4, the Vice Chairman and the
Secretary of the Development Authority.

13. We have carefully considered
the submissions advanced by learned
Counsel for the parties.

14. At the hearing, much was made
of the issue by Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the two
inquiry reports, the one dated 12.04.2021
submitted by the Commissioner of the
Division to the Additional Chief Secretary,
and the other dated 18.02.2022 submitted by
the Vice Chairman upon the direction of the
State Government to record the statements
of the Assistant Engineer and the Junior
Engineer by the Vice Chairman of the
Development
Authority,
when
read
together, exonerate the petitioner of all the
four charges and, therefore, the Additional
Chief Secretary, acting on behalf of the
Government, could not punish the petitioner
without recording reasons of disagreement
with the two inquiry reports and putting the
petitioner to notice. We do not think that this
is a matter where both the inquiry reports
ought to be acted upon. In fact, the
Additional Chief Secretary has taken
cognizance of the inquiry report dated
12.04.2021 submitted by the Commissioner
of the Division, who was initially appointed
the Inquiry Officer, and not the later one
submitted
by
the
Chairman
of
the
Development Authority dated 18.02.2022,
in compliance with the Secretary's direction
dated 09.02.2022 to record the statement of
the Assistant Engineer and the Executive
Engineer.

15. We think that the direction of
the Additional Chief Secretary carried in his
memo dated 09.02.2022 addressed to the
Vice
Chairman
of
the
Development
Authority, upon the petitioner's answer to
the show-cause notice issued to him along
with a copy of the inquiry report submitted
by the Inquiry Officer, the Commissioner of
the Division is entirely ill-founded. It is illfounded for two reasons. One, that if any
further inquiry had to be directed, because of
a fundamental flaw in procedure, the matter
had to be sent back to the Commissioner,
who was already the appointed Inquiry
Officer and had submitted a report in the
matter, on which the show-cause was issued;
and the other is that the directions given to
remove the anomaly by the Additional Chief
Secretary to the Vice Chairman, even if
these were given to the Commissioner, are
entirely inappropriate. The material part of
the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the
State Government, that is to say, the
Additional Chief Secretary and notified on
his behalf by the Deputy Secretary, reads in
its material part as follows :

 2- इ मबन्ध में श्री पूरन कुमार, अदधशा ी
अदभयिंता (दव०यॉ०), आगरा दवका प्रादधकरण, आगरा के पि
दिनािंक 06.01.2022 की छायाप्रदत िंलग्न कर प्रेदित करते ह ए
2- मुझे यह कहने का दनिेश ह आ है दक कृपया नै दगवक न्याय के
दृदष्टगत दनमनवत ूचना शीिव प्राथदमकता के आधार पर शा न को
उपलब्ध करान्याय व दृदष्टगत दनमनवत ूचना कष्ट करें :-

(1) प्रकरण अपचारी अदभयन्ता दजन अवर
अदभयन्ता, हायक अदभयन्ता आदि का बयान िजव कराना चाहता
है, उनका बयान उक्त पि दिनािंक 06.01.2022 में दकये गये
अनुरोधानु ार िजव कराकर उपलब्ध करायें।
 (2) प्रकरण में अवर अदभयन्ता व हायक अदभयन्ता
का उत्तरिादयत्व दनधावररत, दकये 2 दबना ीधे अदधशा ी अदभयन्ता
(2) को आरोदपत करने के िंबिंध में उक्त पि दिनािंक 06.01.2022
में अपचारी अदभयन्ता द्वारा की गयी आपदत्त के दृदष्टगत दस्थदत स्पष्ट
कर उपलब्ध करायें।

16. Clearly, as already observed,
the inquiry in this case had been concluded
by the Commissioner of the Division acting
as the Inquiry Officer appointed by the State
5 All. Puran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
519
Government. If the Additional Chief
Secretary thought that statement of the
Assistant Engineer or the Junior Engineer
was required to be recorded during this
inquiry, the jurisdiction would be that of the
Inquiry Officer, who was the Divisional
Commissioner, and not the Chairman of the
Development Authority. The other direction
in the order dated 09.02.2022 was that the
Development Authority may clarify how in
the absence of the Junior Engineer and the
Assistant Engineer's responsibility being
fixed, the Executive Engineer could be
charged, as objected to by the Executive
Engineer, the charge-sheeted employee,
vide his memo dated 06.01.2022. Now,
this was not a matter to be clarified, at the
stage where proceedings stood, by the
Chairman of the Development Authority.
The Commissioner of the Division had
already submitted his inquiry report and
the State Government was the Disciplinary
Authority. The Additional Chief Secretary
was acting on behalf of the State
Government to decide the disciplinary
matter. If he thought, on the basis of the
inquiry report submitted, that proceedings
against the petitioner could not be taken
without charging the Assistant Engineer
and the Junior Engineer along with the
Executive Engineer (the petitioner) or it
was the Junior Engineer and the Assistant
Engineer alone, who were to be charged,
he could have issued appropriate orders,
directing a fresh charge-sheet to be issued
to the Assistant Engineer and the Junior
Engineer as well, and the matter ordered to
be determined afresh by the Inquiry
Officer against the petitioner as well as the
Assistant
Engineer
and
the
Junior
Engineer, or else, the Additional Chief
Secretary could have held that the
petitioner was not liable to be proceeded
with against, exonerated him and ordered
the Junior Engineer and the Assistant
Engineer to be suitably charge-sheeted
and proceeded with.

17. The direction issued by the
Additional
Chief
Secretary
to
the
Chairman of the Development Authority
to record the statements of the Assistant
Engineer and the Junior Engineer was a
course of action that is utterly illegal. The
Chairman of the Development Authority
was not the Inquiry Officer and he could
not, in the circumstances, have just
recorded the statements of the two officers
and and sent in his own report to the State
Government. It is for this reason perhaps
that the Additional Chief Secretary has not
looked into or taken cognizance of the
Vice Chairman's report dated 18.02.2022,
exonerating the petitioner of Charges Nos.
3 and 4. This does not do any credit to the
Additional Chief Secretary, because it is
he who is responsible for causing this
anomalous report by the Vice Chairman to
figure on the records.

18. So far as the validity of the
impugned order passed by the State
Government against the petitioner is
concerned, we do not think that it can be
sustained. The reason is that in answer to the
assertion in paragraph No. 14 of the writ
petition that no date, time and place was
fixed for oral inquiry by the Commissioner
and also that the petitioner could not crossexamine any witness of the Establishment,
despite his request, apparently because none
was produced by the Establishment, all that
is said in paragraph No. 16 of the counter
affidavit
filed
on
behalf
of
the
Commissioner is as follows :

16. That the averments contained
in Paragraph No. 14 of the Writ Petition are
misconceived and misleading. In reply
thereto, it is submitted that personal/oral
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hearing of the Petitioner was held on
06.01.2022 before the Chief Secretary, Avas
Evam Vikas Shakhri Niyojan Department,
Lucknow.

19. One is left to wonder what a
personal hearing of the petitioner before the
Additional Chief Secretary has to do with
the obligation of the Establishment to
produce witnesses and lead other evidence
before the Inquiry Officer to prove the
charges. It is too well settled for a salutary
principle, which is also the mandate of Rule
7 of the Rules of 1999, that in any
disciplinary matter involving the possible
imposition of a major penalty, it is
imperative for the Establishment to prove
the charges by leading before the Inquiry
Officer evidence, both documentary and
oral. Hearing the petitioner personally,
either by the Inquiry Officer or by the
Disciplinary Authority, would not, at all,
satisfy the fundamental requirements of a
fair of procedure, where the Establishment
have to prove charges, starting from scratch,
before the Inquiry Officer, by leading
evidence, both documentary and oral, that is
to say, by examining witnesses.

20. A perusal of the inquiry report
dated
12.04.2021
submitted
by
the
Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra shows
that the Officer has thrown the procedure to
hold a major penalty to the winds, or he does
not understand the elementaries about it. He
has held the charges proved in a disciplinary
matter involving the possible imposition of a
major penalty by going through the chargesheet and the petitioner's reply and papers
annexed to the charge-sheet and reply to it. He
has never convened himself as an Inquiry
Tribunal, which must be done by virtue of
Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 and also by
salutary principles to hold such an inquiry.
The mandate of Rule 7 as well as the
requirement of salutary procedure in all
matters involving the possible imposition of a
major penalty is that the Inquiry Officer must
distance himself from the Establishment and
sit as an impartial arbiter. He must assume the
charges to be not at all proved to begin with,
and just no more than a set of allegations. He
must require the Establishment to come forth
and produce evidence through a Presenting
Officer, both documentary and oral, to prove
the charges. It is also imperative that in cases
of possible major penalty, witnesses ought to
be examined. After the Presenting Officer
leads evidence, introducing documents and
proving them through appropriate witnesses,
which, in certain cases, can be the Presenting
Officer himself, the witnesses for the
Establishment have to be offered for crossexamination to the charge-sheeted employee.
It is after the evidence of the Establishment is
over that the charge-sheeted employee has to
be given opportunity to lead his evidence,
which, again, can be both documentary and
oral. If the charge-sheeted employee leads oral
evidence, that is to say, produces witnesses,
his witnesses can be cross-examined by the
Establishment. These propositions are well
settled by a catena of decisions by the
Supreme Court and this Court, a reference to
some of which may suffice. In this connection,
reference may be made to the holding of the
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh
and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha4, Roop
Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and
others5, State of Uttaranchal and others v.
Kharak Singh6 and the Bench decisions of this
Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori
Lal and another7, Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v.
State of U.P.8 and State of U.P. v. Aditya
Prasad Srivastava and another9.

21. Now, the inquiry report, that has
been submitted in this case by the
Commissioner is based upon, as already
remarked, the Inquiry Officer gleaning
5 All. Puran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
521
through idle papers annexed to the chargesheet and the petitioner's reply. The papers
annexed to the charge-sheet and the
petitioner's reply could not have been
regarded as evidence. These would turn into
evidence
once
they
were
properly
introduced by a Presenting Officer before
the Inquiry Officer and proved by witnesses
or otherwise, indicating their relevance to
each charge. The Inquiry Officer cannot
identify himself with the Establishment and
assume the charges to be proof of
themselves. This is one trap that every
Administrative
Officer
holding
a
departmental inquiry, at whatever position
or rank he might be, invariably falls into.

22. We are constrained to say that
after a string of decisions that we have
noticed hereinabove, the repeat lapse by
Administrative Officers serving as Inquiry
Officers in major penalty matters, writing
inquiry reports in breach of Rule 7 of the
Rules of 1999, and otherwise also, the
salutary principle regarding proof of the
charges by the Establishment in a formal
inquiry,
producing
both
documentary
evidence and witnesses, ought not to
happen. The Additional Chief Secretary, in
passing the order of punishment, has
committed the same mistake as the
Commissioner, apparently because both
officers seem to think small of the law. Both
the Commissioner and the Additional Chief
Secretary must understand that once we
have laid down the law, about how a
particular matter is to be dealt with and the
same also has imprimatur of the Supreme
Court, it has to be followed and there cannot
be any breach. If this breach is not remedied
for the future by a suitable understanding
and adherence to the law that we have
declared, the immense wastage of public
resource in consequence of the result of
inquiries being nullified for a flawed
procedure will have to be remedied by
imposition of exemplary costs recoverable
from the Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary
Authorities; not the public exchequer.

23. In the result, this petition
succeeds
and
stands
allowed.
The
impugned order dated 08.08.2023 passed by
the Additional Chief Secretary, Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Planning,
Government of U.P., Lucknow is hereby
quashed. The Disciplinary Authority will
be at liberty to proceed with the inquiry
afresh from the stage of the charge-sheet, if
he so elects, bearing in mind the remarks of
this Court and guidance in this judgment. In
case, the Disciplinary Authority elects to
pursue fresh proceedings, he will not impose
a punishment higher than that awarded by
the order impugned and since quashed by
this judgment.

24. There shall be no order is to
costs.

25. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate a copy of this order
to
the
Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Planning, Government of U.P., Lucknow. In
addition, a copy of this order shall also be
communicated to Nitin Ramesh Gokarn, the
Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Housing and Urban Planning, Government
of U.P., Lucknow, wherever he might be
posted, if he is not holding charge in that
department, and Amit Gupta, the then
Commissioner,
Agra
Division,
Agra,
wherever he might be posted, by the
Registrar
(Compliance)
through
the
Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel),
Government of U.P., Lucknow and a report
regarding service shall be submitted by the
Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel),
Government of U.P., Lucknow to the
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned Registrar General of this Court,
which shall be placed on record.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 522
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 18084 of 2022

Dhirendra Kumar Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kapil Dev Singh Rathore, Vikram Dev Singh
Rathore

Counsel for the Respondents:
Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C., Devesh Vikram

A. Service Law - Dismissal from Service -
Post of Peon - Disciplinary proceeding -
Charges may likely to lead imposition of a
major penalty - Burden of proof, on whom
lie - Held, it is the burden of the
Establishment to prove the charge/charges
by leading evidence in the first instance,
both documentary and oral, before an
Inquiry formally convened through a
Presenting Officer. (Para 28)

B. Service law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Principle of natural justice - Applicability -
Evidence considered by the inquiry officer
were not put to the petitioner's notice -
Effect - Held, all the technical evidence,
that the Disciplinary Authority and the
Inquiry Committee took into consideration,
was not brought to the petitioner's notice
with opportunity to him to rebut the same.
In the absence of all this being done the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority and
the Appellate Authority are utterly vitiated
for violation of principles of natural justice
that have led to demonstrable prejudice to
the petitioner. The result would be that all
proceedings, beyond the chargesheet,
stand vitiated. (Para 34 and 36)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punj. National Bank & ors.;
(2009) 2 SCC 570

3. St. of Uttaranchal & ors.Vs Kharak Singh;
(2008) 8 SCC 236

4. St. of UP & anr. Vs Kishori Lal & anr.; 2018 (9)
ADJ 397 (DB) (LB)

5. Smt. Karuna Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P.; 2018 (9)
ADJ 107 (DB) (LB)

6. St. of UP Vs Aditya Prasad Srivastava & anr.;
2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).

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

1. This writ petition is directed against
an order of the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow (for
short, 'the Corporation') dated 23.07.2021,
dismissing the petitioner from service,
besides directing recovery, and the appellate
order of the Corporation Board dated
18.02.2022, dismissing the petitioner's
appeal arising out of the order passed by the
Chairman aforesaid.

2. The petitioner was appointed a
Peon with the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State
Electricity
Board
on
11.04.1997.
Subsequently, upon establishment of the
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited
and its subsidiary Distribution Companies,
including the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, the Uttar Pradesh State
Electricity Board was dissolved. The