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

- **Citation:** (2025) 6 ILRA 148
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-06-13
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 19578 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53567
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article
226-Uttar
Pradesh
Cane
Cooperative
Service
Regulations,1975Regulations 68 and 69-The petitioner
challenged
disciplinary
order
dated
11.03.2022
passed
by
the
cane
commissioner, U.P. imposing the penalties
of
withholding
two
increments
with
cumulative effect, proportionate recovery
of loss and censure and appellate order
dated
24.09.2024
affirming
the
disciplinary action-The charges against
the petitioner, a Cashier at a Cane
Cooperative Society related to alleged
negligence leading to a financial loss of
Rs. 75 lakhs-A department inquiry was
conducted, wherein the Inquiry Officer
found the petitioner guilty -The court
found that the inquiry violated mandatory
procedural safeguards under Regulations
68 and 69 of the Regulations 1975-No
witnesses were examined, and no oral or
6 All. Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
149
documentary
evidence
was
produced
during inquiry proceedings-The inquiry
officer merely relied on the charg-sheet
and reply without proper evidentiary
proceedings-The charge-sheet itself was
defective as it failed to detail the evidence
proposed for each charge-Relying on
settled
law
and
Supreme
Court
precedents,
the
Court
held
that
disciplinary
proceedings
require
production of evidence and examination of
witnesses,
especially
where
major
penalties are involved. (Para 1 to 28)

The writ petition was allowed and both
the disciplinary and appellate orders were
quashed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conclude that the charges against the
petitioner are proved by the requisite
standard of preponderant probability.

17. It is on this short ground alone
that we think that the impugned order ought
be quashed and the matter sent back to the
respondents to pass a fresh order after
considering the petitioner's reply, of course,
granting him further opportunity to file a
supplementary reply with such papers as he
desires and hearing him personally afresh,
as done earlier. We think that personal
hearing is necessary before the Disciplinary
Authority because the earlier decision was
taken after hearing the petitioner, and the
incumbents in office might have changed
or else their memories faded with the lapse
of time.

18. No other point was raised.

19. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the
Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer of the
Bank is hereby quashed. It will be open to
the respondents to pass an order afresh after
affording necessary opportunity of hearing
to
the
petitioner,
but
deciding
the
disciplinary matter now by a reasoned and
speaking order on the merits of the charges,
bearing in mind the guidance in this
judgment. It is further ordered that in
passing the order afresh, should the
Disciplinary Authority reach conclusions
against the petitioner, a punishment higher
than that awarded by the impugned order
shall not be imposed.

20. There shall be no order as to
costs

21. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated
to
the
Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow, the
Chairman, Committee of Management,
District
Cooperative
Bank
Limited,
Bareilly and the Secretary/ Chief Executive
Officer, District Cooperative Bank Limited,
Bareilly by the Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2025) 6 ILRA 148
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.06.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ - A No. 19578 of 2024

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Archana Singh, Shreeprakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,Ravindra Singh

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article
226-Uttar
Pradesh
Cane
Cooperative
Service
Regulations,1975Regulations 68 and 69-The petitioner
challenged
disciplinary
order
dated
11.03.2022
passed
by
the
cane
commissioner, U.P. imposing the penalties
of
withholding
two
increments
with
cumulative effect, proportionate recovery
of loss and censure and appellate order
dated
24.09.2024
affirming
the
disciplinary action-The charges against
the petitioner, a Cashier at a Cane
Cooperative Society related to alleged
negligence leading to a financial loss of
Rs. 75 lakhs-A department inquiry was
conducted, wherein the Inquiry Officer
found the petitioner guilty -The court
found that the inquiry violated mandatory
procedural safeguards under Regulations
68 and 69 of the Regulations 1975-No
witnesses were examined, and no oral or
6 All. Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
149
documentary
evidence
was
produced
during inquiry proceedings-The inquiry
officer merely relied on the charg-sheet
and reply without proper evidentiary
proceedings-The charge-sheet itself was
defective as it failed to detail the evidence
proposed for each charge-Relying on
settled
law
and
Supreme
Court
precedents,
the
Court
held
that
disciplinary
proceedings
require
production of evidence and examination of
witnesses,
especially
where
major
penalties are involved. (Para 1 to 28)

The writ petition was allowed and both
the disciplinary and appellate orders were
quashed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Roop Singh Negi Vs PNB & ors.(2009) 2 SCC
570

3. St. of Uttranchal & 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)

7. Satyendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(2024)
SCC Online SC 3325

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

1. This writ petition is directed
against an order passed by the Cane
Commissioner and Chairman, State Cane
Services Authority, U.P., Lucknow, dated
11.03.2022, awarding the petitioner the
penalty of withholding two increments
with
cumulative
effect,
directing
proportionate
recovery
of
the
loss
sustained by the Sahkari Ganna Vikas
Samiti Limited, Shamli, and censuring
him,
all
after
holding
disciplinary
proceedings. The petitioner has further
challenged the appellate order dated
24.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner,
Cane
and
Sugar,
U.P.,
Lucknow,
dismissing his appeal and affirming the
order of the Disciplinary Authority.

2. The petitioner was posted as a
Cashier
with
the
Cane
Cooperative
Development Society, Thana Bhawan,
District Shamli w.e.f. 03.10.2018. The
petitioner's
conditions of service are
governed by the Uttar Pradesh Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 (for
short, 'the Regulations of 1975'), as
amended from time to time. The petitioner
was issued a charge-sheet dated 28.12.2020
by
the
Deputy
Cane
Commissioner,
Moradabad, who was nominated as the
Inquiry Officer, carrying the following
charges:

 "आरोप पत्र संख्र्ाः 1

 गन्ना आुर्क्त एवं कनबन्धक, सहकारी गन्ना
सकमकतर्ााँ, उ.प्र. के पररपत्र संख्र्ाः 21/सी कदनााँक
10.06.2019 के प्रस्तर-21 में कनधााररत व्र्वस्था कक, गन्ना
सकमकत के कोधाध्र्क्ष, लेखाकार एवं सकचव का दाकर्त्व होगा कक
कवकनर्ोकजत धनराकश की पररपक्वता कतकथ पर धनराकश को सकमकत
खाते में प्राप्त करने अथवा कवकनर्ोकजत धनराकश को ब्र्ाज सकहत
आगे की अवकध के कलए कवकनर्ोकजत ककर्े जाने के सम्बन्ध में
ससमर् कनणार् करार्ेंगे। र्कद इसमें ककसी प्रकार की चूक होती है
और गन्ना सकमकत को ब्र्ाज की हाकन होती है, तो सम्बकन्धत
कोधाध्र्क्ष, लेखाकार एवं सकचव का दाकर्त्व कनधााररत ककर्ा
जार्ेगा। आप द्वारा उक्त कनदेशों का अनुपालन नहीं ककर्ा गर्ा
कजसके कारण तत्कालीन कार्ावाहक लेखाकर द्वारा 'सेन्रल बैंक
आफ इकडिर्ा, खतौली से फजी एफ.िी.आर. संख्र्ाः
3756234723 कदनााँक 24.05.2019 रू. 75.00 लाख
बनवाकर सकमकत धन का व्र्पहरण ककर्ा गर्ा है। र्कद आप द्वारा
अपने पदीर् पदाकर्त्वों का कनवाहन करते हुए उक्त एफ.िी.आर. का
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
सत्र्ापन ककर्ा गर्ा होता तो तत्काल ही व्र्वहरण संज्ञाकनत हो
जाता। आप द्वारा अपने पदीर् दाकर्त्वों का कनवाहन न करने से उक्त
व्र्पहरण में आपकी संकलप्तता भी पररलकक्षत होती है, कजसके कलए
आप दोषी प्रतीत होते हैं।

 साक्ष्र्ः उप गन्ना आर्ुक्त, सहारनपुर की जााँच
आख्र्ा पत्र संख्र्ा 1645/जााँच कदनााँक 01.09.2020

 आरोप संख्यााः 2

 कोषाध्र्क्ष के रूप में सकमकत के संव्र्वहारों की
कनगरानी, कवकनर्ोकजत धनराकश के मदवार प्राकप्त एवं उनका ससमर्
सत्र्ापन करने में आप द्वारा कशकथलता बरती गर्ी, कजसके कारण
उक्त व्र्पहरण हुआ। इस प्रकार आप कोषाध्र्क्ष पद के पदीर्
दाकर्त्वों का कनवाहन न करके सकमकत को कवत्तीर् क्षकत पहुंचाने में
संकलप्त रहने के दोषी प्रतीत होते हैं।

 साक्ष्र्ः उप गन्ना आर्ुक्त, सहारनपुर की जााँच
आख्र्ा पत्र संख्र्ा 1645/जााँच कदनााँक 01.09.2020

 आरोप संख्यााः 3

 आप द्वारा सकमकत के संव्र्वहारों से सम्बकन्धत बैंक
ररकान्सीलेशन स्टेटमेन्ट को सत्र्ाकपत करने में कशकथलता बरती गर्ी,
कजसके कारण उक्त व्पहरण ससमर् प्रकाश में नहीं आ पार्ा, कजसके
कलए आप दोषी प्रतीत होते हैं।

 साक्ष्र्ः उप गन्ना आर्ुक्त, सहारनपुर के जााँच आख्र्ा
पत्र संख्र्ा 1645/जााँच कदनााँक 01.09.2020

 आरोप संख्यााः 4

 आप अपने पदीर् दाकर्त्वों का समुकचत कनवाहन न
करने, कवत्तीर् कनर्मों का अनुपालन न करने कवभागीर्
आदेशों/कनदेशों की अवहेलना करने के दोषी प्रतीत होते हैं।

 साक्ष्र्ः उप गन्ना आर्ुक्त, सहारनपुर की जााँच
आख्र्ा पत्र संख्र्ा 1645/जााँच कदनााँक 01.09.2020"

3. The petitioner filed his reply,
denying the charges. His reply is dated
18.01.2021.
4. We do not intend to delve into
the contents of the charge-sheet and the
petitioner's
reply
or
the
evidence
considered to hold it proved, because it is
indeed not our province to evaluate
evidence, which is the preserve of the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority.

5. What is in question here is the
fairness of the procedure adopted during
inquiry and if at any step of the
proceedings, the petitioner has been denied
his right to hearing, or subjected to unfair
treatment. The Inquiry Officer submitted
his report dated 28.08.2021, holding the
petitioner guilty of Charges Nos.1 and 4,
but exonerating him of Charges Nos.2 and
3.

6. On the foot of the said inquiry
report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a
show cause notice dated 24.09.2021,
proposing to award a major penalty to the
petitioner and requiring him to answer,
enclosing with the show cause, a copy of
the inquiry report. The petitioner furnished
his
explanation
dated
29.11.2021,
requesting an exoneration. The Disciplinary
Authority, vide order dated 11.03.2022,
punished the petitioner in the terms
indicated at the outset of this order. The
said order was appealed by the petitioner to
the Appellate Authority by his appeal dated
18.09.2023. The appeal was dismissed by
the Appellate Authority vide order dated
24.09.2024.

7. Aggrieved, this writ petition has
been instituted by the petitioner.

8. A notice of motion was issued
on 10.12.2024. In response, a counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 jointly, and a
6 All. Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
151
separate counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of respondent No.6, adopting the
terms of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner waived
his opportunity to file a rejoinder when the
matter came up on 20.12.2024. The parties
having exchanged affidavits, the petition
was admitted to hearing which proceeded
forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

9. Heard Mr. Shreeprakash Singh,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6
and Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay,
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

10. The crux of the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner in this case is that though a major
penalty has been awarded to the petitioner,
the
salutary
procedure,
governing
departmental inquiries in a matter where a
major penalty may ensue, has not been
followed. It has been urged by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that no witness
was examined in support of the charges
against the petitioner and that without
examination of witnesses and production of
material
evidence
on behalf
of
the
establishment, the charges could not have
been held proved by the Inquiry Officer,
merely going through the charge-sheet and
the petitioner's reply.

11. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has drawn the Court's attention to
paragraph No.37 of the writ petition, where
a specific plea in regard to the nonexamination of witnesses and production of
evidence has been raised. In the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.3, 4 and 5, the said plea has been
answered in paragraph No.41 in the
following terms:

 "41. That in reply to the contents
of paragraph 37 and 38 of the writ petition,
it is stated that on examining the defence
reply
submitted
by
the
delinquent
employee, it was found that the delinquent
employee has neither submnitted the reply
in the context of the allegations found to be
proved nor has he expressed his desire for
personal hearing in his defence reply,
whereas in the show cause notice issued by
letter dated 24.09.2021, it has been clearly
mentioned that, "If you want personal
hearing or are willing to be cross-examined
by any witness, then clearly mention it in
your defence reply."

 Copy of show cause notice
issued by letter dated 24.09.2021, is being
filed as CA-7 to this Affidavit"

12. We may hasten to add here that
in paragraph No.41 of the counter affidavit,
after
the
quoted
part,
the
relevant
provisions of the Regulations of 1975 have
also been quoted in extenso, but that part is
being excluded, for reason that we would
quote the relevant provisions ourselves.

13. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has very emphatically argued that
the inquiry that was held was not an inquiry
in accordance with the Regulations of
1975, which require, in case of every
departmental inquiry, where charges are
denied, a date, time and place of inquiry to
be scheduled by the Inquiry Officer. The
Regulations of 1975 also require in accord
with salutary principles that if a major
penalty is likely to be imposed in
consequence
of
the
disciplinary
proceedings, at the hearing before the
Inquiry Officer, the establishment must
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
produce their evidence, both documentary
and oral. By oral evidence is meant
witnesses for the establishment, who would
prove their case and also prove documents.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that an inquiry cannot be validly held under
the Regulations of 1975 by the Inquiry
Officer, merely sifting through the chargesheet and the delinquent's reply to record
his conclusions, without production of the
necessary evidence, both documentary and
oral, on behalf of the establishment.

14. Mr. Ravindra Singh, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6, has argued that under the
Regulations of 1975, the charges come with
proof of themselves and if the delinquent
wants to establish his innocence, that is his
burden. It is not the employer's burden to
prove the charge/ charges.

15. We have carefully considered
the rival submissions advanced by learned
Counsel for the parties, perused the record
and also the relevant provisions of the
Regulations of 1975.

16. The relevant provisions of the
Regulations of 1975 are carried in Chapter
X and those relevant to the issue are
Regulations 68 and 69. Regulations 68 and
69 of the Regulations of 1975 read:

 "68. A complaint into which
disciplinary proceedings are considered
necessary on the basis of the preliminary
inquiry, proceedings shall be recorded in
writing in the form of charges which shall
be communicated to the official concerned
and a copy of the same endorsed to the
authority concerned as mentioned in
column 4 of the second schedule. The basis
of each charge and the evidence proposed
to be considered in support of the charge
should be given in details against each
charges. The official shall be called upon
by the Enquiring Officer to submit his
explanation in writing for each charge,
within a specified time and also to state
whether he desires to be heard in person or
to produce any evidence (documentary or
oral) or to examine or cross-examine any
witness in his defence. (He will be allowed
to see the relevant records if he so desires.

 After his explanation has been
received a date will be fixed for personal
hearing when evidence, both oral and
documentary shall be produced. He will be
allowed to cross-examine such witnesses as
he likes. He will then be given an
opportunity to produce his own witness or
documents in support of his defence. The
Inquiring Officer shall then weigh the
entire evidence and given his findings on
each charge and recommended, punishment
when, in his opinion should be inflicted on
the official, to the authority mentioned in
column 4 of the second schedule. A record
of the proceedings shall be maintained by
the Enquiring Officer.

 If the official fails to submit his
explanations within the time specified in
the charge-sheet without sufficient reason,
the Inquiring Officer shall be free to give
his findings on the basis of the evidence
before him and will recommend suitable
punishment to the competent authority.

 In case, on the basis of the report
of the Inquiring Officer, the competent
authority proposes to dismiss, remove or
reduce in rank the official concerned it
shall inform the official concerned, of the
action proposed to be taken and shall given
another opportunity to the official to defend
himself. A copy of the report of the
Inquiring Officer shall also be supplied to
6 All. Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
153
the official concerned along with the showcause notice. He shall be required within a
reasonable time to put in a written
statement of his defence and to state
whether he desires to be heard in person or
to give further evidence for which an
opportunity will be allowed to the official if
so desired by him. The competent authority
conducting the enquiry may, however, for
sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing,
refuse to call a witness. The proceedings of
the inquiry shall contain sufficient record
of the evidence and statement of the
findings and the grounds thereof.

 In case the competent authority
decides to award a punishment other than
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, it
may pass final orders on the basis of the
inquiry report of the inquiring officer.

 The above procedure shall not
apply where the charged official has
absconded or where it is for other reasons
impracticable to communicate within him.
In such cases, the inquiring officer with
make a complete report to the competent
authority for taking suitable action against
the official concerned.

 All or any of the provisions of the
above procedure may, in exceptional cases
and for special and sufficient reasons to be
recorded in writing, be waived by the
competent authority with the prior and
express approval of the cane commissioner
in cases where there is difficulty in
observing exactly the requirements of the
procedure and if those requirements and be
waived without in justice to the official
charged.

 69. At the conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings, the competent
authority may impose any or more of the
following punishments according to the
nature and gravity of the offence:

(a) Censure.
(b)
 (b) Withholding the increment or
increments
including
stoppage
at
in
efficiency bar or promotion.

 (c) Reduction to a lower post or
time-scale or to a lower stage in time-scale.

 (d) Fine.

(e) Recovery from the pay of the
whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused
to the institution or institutions placed
under his charge by his negligence or
breach of orders.

 (f) Removal from service.

 (g) Dismissal from service.

 N. B.--Dismissal disqualifies an
employee from re-employment in the
service."

17. It must be remarked at the
outset that the salutary principle governing
the
procedure
to
hold
departmental
inquiries in disciplinary matters, mandate a
date, time and place of the inquiry to be
scheduled by the Inquiry Officer and
burdens the establishment to prove the
charges by producing evidence in the first
instance, both documentary and oral, in
cases where a major penalty may be
imposed. The salutary principles governing
disciplinary proceedings, in general, do not
require this onerous procedure to be
followed
in
cases
of
disciplinary
proceedings, where a minor penalty is
contemplated,
or
may
ultimately
be
imposed. The Regulations of 1975, much
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contrary to what Mr. Ravindra Singh has
urged, provide very differently. These do
not differentiate between the procedure of
holding an inquiry in a matter where a
major penalty may be or is imposed and
those where a minor penalty is in
contemplation or ultimately imposed.

18.
Regulation
69
apparently
classifies the penalties contemplated under
Clauses (e), (f) and (g) thereof as major
penalties, whereas those under Clauses (a),
(b), (c) and (d), minor penalties. The
distinction in the procedure between
penalties covered by Clauses (e), (f) and (g)
of Regulation 69 and those covered by
Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), is attracted at
the post-inquiry stage in the matter of the
employer's obligation to give a show-cause
notice along with a copy of the inquiry
report, or as it is generally called, 'the
second show cause'. Under Regulation 68
of the Regulations of 1975, in cases where
the Disciplinary Authority proposes to
dismiss, remove or reduce in rank the
delinquent, the Authority is obliged to
inform the delinquent of the action
proposed to be taken and give him another
opportunity to defend himself. For the
purpose, a copy of the inquiry report has to
be supplied to the delinquent along with the
show cause. The delinquent is then to be
given reasonable time to put in his written
defence and say if he desires to be heard in
person or give further evidence, for which
opportunity would be allowed to the
delinquent, if he asks for it.

19. The Disciplinary Authority,
however, for sufficient reasons, to be
recorded in writing, may refuse to call a
witness. Now, these are very unusual
features carried in the Regulations of 1975
about the procedure at the post-inquiry
stage. The further unusual procedure under
the Regulations of 1975 is that there is no
distinction until the stage of completion of
the departmental inquiry by the Inquiry
Officer between the case of a major penalty
or minor penalty. In both cases, a date, time
and place has to be scheduled by the
Inquiry Officer and the establishment has
to produce evidence, both documentary and
oral. As already noticed under the salutary
principles
generally
applicable
to
disciplinary proceedings, the procedure for
holding an inquiry, fixing a date, time and
place, and requiring the establishment to
prove the charges by producing evidence,
both documentary and oral, applies only in
cases of major penalties; not all penalties.
Under the Regulations of 1975, the
procedure applies uniformly, irrespective of
the severity or the grade of penalty
involved.

20. We think that the submission of
Mr. Ravindra Singh that under the
Regulations of 1975, the charges come with
proof of themselves, is one that is swayed
by the different and special procedure
provided at the stage of the second show
cause. It is at that stage that the delinquent
has been given the facility of producing
further evidence, including a witness in his
defence. Perhaps, this has somewhat
influenced the submissions of Mr. Ravindra
Singh the way he has advanced them before
us. Regrettably, we cannot agree.

21. Apart from the fact that the
second show cause served in this case
reveals that the respondents had a major
penalty in contemplation until that time,
even if they did not have that in mind and
intended to impose the punishment of
withholding the increment or increments,
including stoppage at the efficiency bar
etc., they could not have departed from the
procedure of holding a departmental
6 All. Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
155
inquiry,
where,
after
scheduling
the
inquiry, the Inquiry Officer would be
obliged to require the establishment to
produce evidence, both documentary and
oral, in support of the charges. This is
because until that time, there is no
distinction in the procedure to be followed,
irrespective of the class of punishment to
be awarded or contemplated to be awarded
under the Regulations of 1975. Regulation
68 requires, irrespective of anything, the
Inquiry Officer to fix a date for personal
hearing, when evidence, both oral and
documentary, shall be produced. Now,
these are the precise words employed in the
Regulations of 1975. They are followed by
the words "he will be allowed to crossexamine such witnesses as he likes". Now,
cross-examination one does of witnesses
produced by the other side.

22. The tenor of the second
paragraph of Regulation 68, to our mind, is
clear in that after receiving the delinquent's
explanation, the date to be fixed by the
Inquiry Officer for personal hearing when
evidence, both documentary and oral, is
required to be produced, does not mean,
again, as Mr. Ravindra Singh submits, that
the charges come with proof of themselves
and the delinquent has to produce evidence
to dispel the charges. That could never be
the intent of Regulation 68, given the very
generous scheme of Chapter X of the
Regulations of 1975, where, more than
ordinary opportunity is envisaged for the
delinquent/ charge-sheeted employee at
every stage of the proceeding. Going by the
settled principles, which do not seem to
have
been
excluded
by
the
second
paragraph of Regulation 68, at the
scheduled date fixed for personal hearing, it
is the establishment who have to be heard
in support of the charges and it is they who
have to produce evidence in the first
instance, both documentary and oral, to
prove the charges.

23. By oral evidence is meant
witnesses. The witnesses would introduce
and prove the documents, imbuing these
with life, what are otherwise idle papers.
They would testify to other facts as well, in
order to prove the charges. It is these
witnesses regarding whom a right has been
given distinctly under the second paragraph
of Regulation 68 to the delinquent to crossexamine. The words "he will be allowed to
cross-examine such witnesses as he likes",
employed for the delinquent in paragraph 2
of Regulation 68, are followed by the
words "he will then be given an opportunity
to produce his own witness or documents in
support of his defence". These last words
quoted are a clincher about the issue that in
the opening part of paragraph 2 of
Regulation 68, in keeping with the salutary
principles,
governing
departmental
inquiries, the burden has been cast on the
establishment on the date fixed for personal
hearing to hear the establishment's evidence
first, before the delinquent is called upon to
produce his evidence, both documentary
and oral.

24. A perusal of the inquiry report
shows that no such procedure was followed
by the Inquiry Officer, as mandated by
Regulation 68. He has set forth the terms of
the charge, followed by the petitioner's
defence, and going through idle papers
before
him,
decidedly
without
the
production of any documentary or oral
evidence on behalf of the establishment,
returned his findings on each charge. This
is certainly not the procedure which the
Regulations of 1975 contemplate. This is
also not the procedure, which the salutary
principles,
governing
departmental
inquiries, where a major penalty may be
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
imposed, countenance. Since procedure for
all
kinds
of
punishment
under
the
Regulations of 1975 is the same without
distinction of the grade of punishment, all
principles evolved in the context of major
penalty inquiries would a fortiori apply to
the present proceedings held by the
respondents.

25. This position of the law is
firmly settled, as held by the Supreme
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and
others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2
SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab
National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC
570, State of Uttaranchal and others v.
Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and the
Bench decisions of this Court in State of
U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and
another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB),
Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P.,
2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) and State of
U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and
another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).

26. The position of the law in this
regard, that has withstood the test of time,
has been recently endorsed by the Supreme
Court in Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P.
and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325,
where it has been held:

 "12. Learned counsel for the State
was ad idem to the submissions of the
appellant's
counsel
that
no
witness
whatsoever was examined during the
course of the inquiry proceedings. On a
minute appraisal of the Inquiry Report, it is
evident that other than referring to the
documents
pursuant
to
the
so-called
irregular transactions constituting the basis
of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer failed to
record the evidence of even a single
witness in order to establish the charges
against the appellant.
 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, (2009) 2 SCC 570 and
Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, (2013)
4 SCC 301."

27. There is a further feature
involved here that vitiates the charge-sheet
partly. Regulation 68 requires that in the
charge-sheet, the basis of each charge and
the evidence proposed to be considered in
support of the charge should be given in
detail against each charge. Here, all that is
shown for evidence is a copy of a
preliminary
inquiry
report
dated
01.09.2020 conducted by the Deputy Cane
Commissioner, Saharanpur. This could be
the basis of the charges, but not the
evidence to prove them. The evidence
would be the documents, which would
establish the charge and witnesses, who
would prove those documents and other
facts relevant to the charges, not already
mentioned in the documents. A preliminary
inquiry report is neither documentary
evidence nor is it oral. It can be the basis of
the charge alone. Regulation 68 of the
Regulations of 1975, by its first paragraph,
requires disclosure of the basis of each
charge and the evidence proposed to be
considered in support of the charge,
furnishing it in detail against each of the
charges carried in the charge-sheet. The
charge-sheet here, as already pointed out,
does not carry any details of evidence, by
which, it is proposed to prove the charges.
There is not even a mention of it, what to
speak of details. To this extent, the chargesheet dated 28.12.2020 is flawed and not in
accordance with paragraph 1 of Regulation
68
of
the
Regulations
of
1975.
6 All. Anand Singh Aswal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
157
28. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Cane
Commissioner and the Chairman, State
Cane Services Authority, U.P., Lucknow
and the appellate order dated 24.09.2024
passed by the Commissioner, Cane and
Sugar,
U.P.,
Lucknow,
are
hereby
quashed.
It
will
be
open
to
the
respondents, if they so elect, to pursue fresh
proceedings against the petitioner. If they
so elect, they would be obliged to draw up
the
charge-sheet
in
accordance
with
Regulation 68 of the Regulations of 1975,
mentioning therein the details of evidence
against each charge, by which, it is
proposed to be proved. Apart from that, the
charge-sheet
dated
28.12.2020
would
remain as it is. If the respondents pursue
fresh proceedings against the petitioner, the
inquiry would be held, bearing in mind the
guidance in this judgment for the holding
of departmental inquiries. It is further
directed that if indeed fresh proceedings are
pursued against the petitioner on the basis
of the slightly rectified charge-sheet, a
punishment
higher
than
that
already
awarded to the petitioner shall not be
imposed. It is made clear that if fresh
proceedings
are
pursued
against
the
petitioner, he would not be entitled to any
monetary benefits from the quashing of the
orders impugned immediately, but that
would depend upon the event in the inquiry
proceedings to be taken afresh. If no
proceedings are taken, the respondents
would be obliged to pay the petitioner the
arrears of his emoluments, arising on
account of the difference of what he has
received and what would be payable with
the penalty awarded effaced.

29. There shall be no order as to
costs.

30. Let this order be communicated
to the Cane Commissioner and Chairman,
State Cane Services Authority, U.P.,
Lucknow and the Commissioner, Cane and
Sugar, U.P., Lucknow by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2025) 6 ILRA 157
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.06.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 35844 of 2019
With
Writ A No. 589 of 2020

Anand Singh Aswal ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shalabh Singh, Gaurav Kaushik, Navneet
Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.S.G., Dr. V.K. Singh, Sanjeev Kumar
Srivastava, Shailesh Kumar

A.
Service
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 14 - Principle of
natural justice - Appointment - Post of
Producer - Withdrawal of appointment -
No reason was given in the impugned
order - Effect - Held, the manner under
which the impugned order withdrawing
the offer of appointment has been issued
is
violative
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution of India inasmuch as it is a
settled law that the requirement to record
reasons is a fundamental principle of
natural justice which acts as a check
against arbitrary exercise of powers and
ensures fairness. The opposite parties
acted
arbitrarily
and
in
violation
of
principles of natural justice. (Para 36)