# Rajesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 696 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-09-23 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 9026 of 2021 - **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46403 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote A. Service Law - Disciplinary enquiry - U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9(2) - Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the inquiry report and has passed an order for re-inquiry without assigning any reason. Moreover, nothing has been stated as to why reason has not been recorded. Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1999 clearly provides that in case of disagreement with inquiry report and passing order for reinquiry, it is required on the part of Disciplinary Authority to give his own finding i.e. reason has to be recorded, therefore, order is contrary to 10 All. Rajesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 697 the Rule 9(2) of Rules, 1999 and is liable to be set aside. (Para 10) Writ petition allowed. (E-4) Precedent followed: ## Text 696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the petitioner to effectively contest the proceedings and establish petitioner's innocence. 22. As has already been observed above the initiation of the disciplinary enquiry in the present case is after thirteen years and even the materials on the basis of which the charges are proposed to be established are apparently not available. Merely by stating that an enquiry committee has been constituted to look into these aspects the State would be not justified in prolonging the suffering of petitioner, any further, by allowing the respondents to proceed with the enquiry. Even the charges in the charge-sheet are based upon certain letters of the higher authorities without there being any examination of original bills or other materials which alone can constitute the basis for the charge-sheet. Merely stating that huge financial losses are caused to the State would not suffice unless the charges are even prima facie supported by any credible material placed before the court. 23. Having considered the respective submissions and upon examination of materials brought on record this Court finds that absolutely no reasons have been placed on record by the respondents to explain the inordinate delay of thirteen years in initiation of the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner otherwise has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2015. In the totality of circumstances as also for the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is liable to succeed and is allowed. The charge-sheet issued to petitioner as also the order of suspension and its continuance for a period of thirteen years without any justification are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment of salary for the period he remained under suspension along with continuity and other service benefits. The retiral benefits which are found due and payable to petitioner in terms of his entitlement as per above shall also be worked out and paid to him within a period of four months, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum. It shall however be open for the respondents to recover the amount of interest from the salary of the officer found responsible for not ensuring release of the retiral benefits in terms of the aforesaid direction. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ---------- (2021)10ILR A696 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. Writ A No. 9026 of 2021 Rajesh Pratap Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vijay Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Service Law - Disciplinary enquiry - U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9(2) - Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the inquiry report and has passed an order for re-inquiry without assigning any reason. Moreover, nothing has been stated as to why reason has not been recorded. Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1999 clearly provides that in case of disagreement with inquiry report and passing order for reinquiry, it is required on the part of Disciplinary Authority to give his own finding i.e. reason has to be recorded, therefore, order is contrary to 10 All. Rajesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 697 the Rule 9(2) of Rules, 1999 and is liable to be set aside. (Para 10) Writ petition allowed. (E-4) Precedent followed: 1. Shiv Shanker Lal Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2008 1 ADJ 446 (Para 4) 2. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Neeraj Verma, (2021) ILR 6 All 295 (Para 4) (Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for State-respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:- "i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of re-enquiry dated 03.06.2021 passed by respondent No. 2." 3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 06.08.2021, learned standing counsel has produced instruction dated 13.09.2021 duly signed by Additional Commissioner, Department of Food and Logistics, which is taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 9(2) of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1999'), in case of disagreement with inquiry report, it is required on the part of Disciplinary Authority to record reasons for conducting re-inquiry. In the present case, impugned order of re-inquiry has been passed without recording any reason, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of Shiv Shanker Lal vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as 2008 1 ADJ 446 and State of U.P. and others Vs. Neeraj Verma, reported as 2021 0 Supreme (All) 309. 5. Learned Standing Counsel from the instruction could not demonstrate any reason recorded by Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order of re-inquiry while having disagreement with inquiry report. He also could not demonstrate as to why reasons have not been recorded. 6. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the Rules, 1999 as well as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 clearly provides that Disciplinary Authority shall record reasons for conducting re-inquiry. Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 is quoted below:- "9. Action on Inquiry Report.- (1) The disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the disciplinary authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated by the disciplinary 698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES authority of the charges and inform him accordingly. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under subrule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant." 8. In the case of Shiv Shanker Lal (Supra), impugned order has been quashed on the ground that reason has not been recorded for conducting re-inquiry. Paragraph Nos. 9 & 13 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "............... 9. A perusal of the aforesaid makes it clear that the same is nothing but reproduction of charge No. 2 levelled against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 28.08.2003. The Court is unable to find out any finding or reasons of the disciplinary authority for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer and in our view it is only a conclusion that the aforesaid charge is proved against the petitioner. Para 2 of the notice dated 30.07.2004 cannot be said to contain any finding and reason and on the contrary it is only, at the best, a conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority without recording its finding and reasons as mandated under Rule 9 (2) of 1999 Rules. .................. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 27.04.2006 (annexure-1) to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner conforming with the requirement of Rule 9(2) of 1999 Rules, if is so decides and may pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The exercise, as directed above, be completed within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the competent authority. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 2000/." 9. Again, this Court in the matter of State of U.P. and others Vs. Neeraj Verma (Supra) has taken the same view. Paragraph No. 14 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "(14) In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order transpired that the inquiry officer exonerated the claimant/respondent of all the charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings particularly in respect to charges No.6, 7 and 8, and without recording/mentioning any reason with respect to the point on which the Disciplinary Authority has not agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer, straightaway issued a show cause notice to the claimant/ respondent, who, after receipt of the show cause notice, submitted his reply, but without considering the issue 10 All. Seema Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 699 raised by the claimant/respondent in its reply to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of punishment, which has been challenged by the claimant/respondent in Claim Petition No. 253 of 2018. The Tribunal has also found that so far as delayed payment of the license fee is concerned, the Excise Commissioner had fixed 15.04.2015 for deposition of the license fee and prior to it, the claimant/respondent has deposited the license fee. The Tribunal has also opined that the punishment order is against the principle of natural justice. In these backgrounds, vide impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and quashed the order of punishment with a direction that if any service benefits if withheld on account of the punishment order dated 30.11.2017, the claimant/respondent is entitled to get the same, in accordance with law." 10. I have perused the impugned order in the present case. After having disagreement with inquiry report, Disciplinary Authority has passed order for re-inquiry, but no reason has been assigned and nothing has been stated as to why reason has not been recorded. Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1999 clearly provides that in case of disagreement with inquiry report and passing order for re-inquiry, it is required on the part of Disciplinary Authority to give his own finding i.e. reason has to be recorded, therefore, order is contrary to the Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1999 and is liable to be set aside. 11. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1999 as well as pronouncement made by this Court, impugned order dated 03.06.2021 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. 12. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is allowed. 13. However, respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1999 after giving opportunity to the petitioner. ---------- (2021)10ILR A699 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J. Writ A No. 12665 of 2021 Seema Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Manoj Kumar Patel Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Dhamendra Pratap Singh A. Service Law - Compassionate appointment - U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(a) & 2(c) - The expression "unmarried" in Rule 2(c) has been struck down by this Court as constitutionally invalid, "daughters" per se, irrespective of whether they were married or divorced, would be entitled to be recognised as being entitled to claim the benefit of the 1974 Rules. This, of course, subject to the well accepted caveat that they would, like sons, have to establish a position of financial dependency at the time of the untimely demise of the government servant. (Para 13) Matter remitted to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. Writ petition allowed. (E-4) Precedent cited: