# Ram Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 58
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-24
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5583 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prakash-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53602
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Competence of the disciplinary authority in
reiterating the charges and holding the petitioner
guilty
without
discussing
the
findings
and
reasoning recorded by the Enquiry Officer in
holding the charge against the petitioner not
proved.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Major penalty - Withholding
of two increments with cumulative effect -
Charge of deliberately issuing the fitness
certificate against provisions was leveled -
In inquiry report, the charge was not found
proved
against
the
petitioner
-
The
disciplinary authority disagreed with the
inquiry report and held petitioner guilty
without discussing on the findings and
reasoning recorded by the Enquiry Officer -
Further the disciplinary authority reiterated
the charges without adverting to any
evidence - Permissibility :
Held : Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1999 is clearly salutary
in nature and is meant for protection of a
delinquent employee in case the disciplinary
authority disagrees with inquiry report. It is,
therefore, incumbent upon a disciplinary authority
to specifically record reasons for disagreeing with
the inquiry report - It would be incumbent upon a
disciplinary authority to advert to findings recorded
in
the
inquiry
report,
material
evidence,
documentary or otherwise and to indicate how the
reasons and findings recorded by the Enquiry
Officer does not fulfill the relevant aspects required
to be seen by the Enquiry Officer. [Paras 15, 16
and 18] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharastra and
another, (1999) 7 SCC 739; Punjab National Bank
and others v. Kunj Bihari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84;
Baldev Singh Gandhi vs State of Punjab and
others, AIR 2002 SC 1124; Noratanmal Chouraria
v. M.R. Murli & another, (2004) 5 SCC 689; State
of U.P. and others v. Raj Mani Singh and another,
(2018) 36 LCD 644 - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9.

List of Keywords
Major penalty; Withholding of two increment
with cumulative effect; Charge of issuing the
7 All. Ram Prakash Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
59
fitness certificate against provisions; Inquiry
report; Disciplinary proceeding; Non application
of
mind;
Subjective
satisfaction;
Laconic
reasoning; Delinquent employee; Opportunity of
hearing.

Case Arising From
Order dated 18.05.2022 and endorsement letter
dated 02.08.2023 punishing the petitioner with
major penalty of withholding of two increments
with cumulative effect.

## Text

58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appropriate government to appoint not less
than 4% of total number of vacancies as
such instead of sending the matter to the
competent authority the Court while
exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India deems it fit to pass the
following orders.

40. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The
order impugned dated 19.06.2023, a copy
of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition
is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued
commanding the respondents to appoint the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor
(English) against physically handicapped
category.

41. Let the order be complied
within six weeks from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 58
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 5583 of 2024

Ram Prakash Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hari Prasad Gupta, Hari Ram Gup

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Competence of the disciplinary authority in
reiterating the charges and holding the petitioner
guilty
without
discussing
the
findings
and
reasoning recorded by the Enquiry Officer in
holding the charge against the petitioner not
proved.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Major penalty - Withholding
of two increments with cumulative effect -
Charge of deliberately issuing the fitness
certificate against provisions was leveled -
In inquiry report, the charge was not found
proved
against
the
petitioner
-
The
disciplinary authority disagreed with the
inquiry report and held petitioner guilty
without discussing on the findings and
reasoning recorded by the Enquiry Officer -
Further the disciplinary authority reiterated
the charges without adverting to any
evidence - Permissibility :
Held : Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1999 is clearly salutary
in nature and is meant for protection of a
delinquent employee in case the disciplinary
authority disagrees with inquiry report. It is,
therefore, incumbent upon a disciplinary authority
to specifically record reasons for disagreeing with
the inquiry report - It would be incumbent upon a
disciplinary authority to advert to findings recorded
in
the
inquiry
report,
material
evidence,
documentary or otherwise and to indicate how the
reasons and findings recorded by the Enquiry
Officer does not fulfill the relevant aspects required
to be seen by the Enquiry Officer. [Paras 15, 16
and 18] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharastra and
another, (1999) 7 SCC 739; Punjab National Bank
and others v. Kunj Bihari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84;
Baldev Singh Gandhi vs State of Punjab and
others, AIR 2002 SC 1124; Noratanmal Chouraria
v. M.R. Murli & another, (2004) 5 SCC 689; State
of U.P. and others v. Raj Mani Singh and another,
(2018) 36 LCD 644 - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9.

List of Keywords
Major penalty; Withholding of two increment
with cumulative effect; Charge of issuing the
7 All. Ram Prakash Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
59
fitness certificate against provisions; Inquiry
report; Disciplinary proceeding; Non application
of
mind;
Subjective
satisfaction;
Laconic
reasoning; Delinquent employee; Opportunity of
hearing.

Case Arising From
Order dated 18.05.2022 and endorsement letter
dated 02.08.2023 punishing the petitioner with
major penalty of withholding of two increments
with cumulative effect.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta,
learned counsel for petitioner and Ms Parul
Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the opposite parties.

2.
Petition
has
been
filed
challenging order dated 18.05.2022 along
with
the
endorsement
letter
dated
02.08.2023 whereby petitioner has been
visited with major penalty of withholding
of two increments with cumulative effect.
Further prayer for a direction to concerned
authorities to extend all the incidental and
consequential service benefits withheld due
to impugned punishment order has also
been sought.

3. It has been submitted that an
accident occurred on 19.07.2020 between a
private vehicle and a private bus bearing
registration no.UP17-AT4782. In pursuance
of such an accident, petitioner was issued a
charge sheet dated 21.06.2021 containing five
charges with the primary charge that the
aforesaid private bus had been inspected by
petitioner in the course of his duties as
Assistant
Regional
Transport
Officer
(Administration) in the year 2018 and a
certificate of fitness was also issued by him
which was valid from 24.02.2018 to
23.02.2020 and there were certain omissions
on the part of petitioner due to which fitness
certificate should not have been issued.
Charge No.1 pertained to the offending bus
having 12 more seats than were permissible;
Charge no.2 pertained to excess length of the
bus by 1000 m.m; Charge no.3 pertained to
discrepancy in overhang of bus by 1080 m.m;
Charge no.4 pertained to rear screen mirror
being hidden by steel body and Charge no.5
pertained generally to petitioner issuing a
certificate against provisions.

4. It is submitted that petitioner
replied to the aforesaid charge sheet in letter
dated 07.03.2022 denying charges levelled
against him with the submission that
discrepancies indicated in the charges were
not present at the time of inspection and may
have
occurred
subsequently
with
the
connivance of bus owner. It is also submitted
that after inquiry proceedings, inquiry report
dated 24.05.2022 was submitted exonerating
petitioner from all the charges whereafter a
show cause notice dated 27.07.2022 was
issued by the disciplinary authority indicating
his disagreement with the inquiry report. It is
submitted that aforesaid show cause notice
was also replied to whereafter impugned
punishment order has been passed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the proceedings subsequent to
submission of inquiry report are in violation
of settled law as well as Rule 9 of U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules,
1999') inasmuch as show cause notice clearly
indicates the disciplinary authority having
made up its mind with regard to alleged
misconduct of petitioner and also does not
indicate any reasoning for disagreeing with
the inquiry report.

6. It is further submitted that a
perusal of aforesaid show cause notice
would indicate that on the pretext of
disagreeing
with
inquiry
report,
the
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disciplinary authority in fact has merely
reiterated
charges
levelled
against
petitioner. It is also submitted that even in
the punishment order, aspects on which
petitioner was exonerated in inquiry
proceedings have not been considered. It is,
therefore, submitted that for all practical
purposes, impugned order is non speaking
and indicates non application of mind by
the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel
for petitioner has placed reliance on
judgments rendered in the cases of
Yoginath
D.
Bagde
vs.
State
of
Maharastra and another, (1999) 7 SCC
739, Punjab National Bank and others vs.
Kunj Bihari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84,
Baldev Singh Gandhi vs State of Punjab
and
others,
AIR
2002
SC
1124,
Noratanmal Chouraria vs. M.R. Murli &
another (2004) 5 SCC 689 and State of
U.P. and others vs. Raj Mani Singh and
another (2018) 36 LCD 644.

7. Learned State counsel on the
basis of counter affidavit has refuted
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner with the submission that
petitioner has been found responsible for
not duly inspecting the bus and not
conducting its fitness as per standards and
due to his negligent discharge of duties,
resulted in an accident leading to death of
several persons apart from injuring others.

8. It is submitted that procedure as
required to be followed in terms of Rule 9
of Rules 1999 has clearly been followed by
the disciplinary authority in the show cause
notice where he has expressly indicated
reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry
report whereafter a show cause notice has
been issued to petitioner and his reply has
also
been
duly
considered
in
the
punishment order.

9. It is therefore submitted that
since procedure as required has been
followed and ample opportunity of hearing
has also been provided to petitioner, the
impugned punishment order does not
warrant any interference.

10.
Upon
consideration
of
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for parties and perusal of material on
record, it is evident that petitioner was
charge sheeted with regard to five charges
as indicated hereinabove but inquiry report
dated 25.05.2022 has clearly exonerated
petitioner from all the charges primarily on
the ground that alterations made in the
offending vehicle may have taken place
subsequent to grant of fitness certificate
particularly since two years had elapsed
from issuance of fitness certificate and the
date of accident. The inquiry report
specifically indicates that there is no
material on record whereby petitioner can
be held guilty of deliberately issuing the
fitness certificate against provisions.

11. It is also evident that upon
receipt of inquiry report, a show cause
notice dated 27.07.2022 has been issued by
disciplinary
authority
indicating
disagreement with the inquiry report.
However, a perusal of aforesaid show cause
notice indicates that under the pretext of
disagreeing with the inquiry report, the
disciplinary authority has mainly quoted
charges which had been levelled against
petitioner in the charge sheet. There is
absolutely no discussion with regard to
findings of Enquiry Officer and as to
reasons by the disciplinary authority for not
agreeing with them. Show cause notice also
does not indicate any factor that inquiry
report is not based on any material
evidence or ignores any material evidence.
7 All. Ram Prakash Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
61
12. Exfacie the show cause notice
appears to be a result of non-application of
mind. It is also evident that although the
letter dated 27.07.2022 indicates it to be a
show cause notice but the disciplinary
authority clearly while disagreeing with
inquiry report holds the petitioner guilty of
charges levelled against him.

13. In considered opinion of this
Court, once the disciplinary authority was
disagreeing with inquiry report and in
pursuance thereof was issuing a show cause
notice, there was no occasion for the
authority to have recorded a subjective
satisfaction
with
regard
to
guilt
of
petitioner at that stage. The disciplinary
authority having made up its mind at the
stage of issuance of show cause notice
itself,
renders
subsequent
proceedings
negatory.

14. It is also evident from record
that while passing impugned order of
punishment,
the
disciplinary
authority
while quoting reply submitted by petitioner
has not adverted to the same at all and has
mainly rejected it on the ground that it is
not worthy of acceptance. Here again, the
disciplinary authority has indicated a
laconic reasoning without indicating any
aspect as to why reply submitted by
petitioner was unworthy of acceptance. The
disciplinary authority thereafter has again
reiterated charges levelled against petitoner
without adverting to any evidence to hold
him guilty of charges levelled against him.

15. Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1999
prescribes procedure for action to be taken
on inquiry report and stipulated that 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.
16. The aforesaid provision is
clearly salutary in nature and is meant for
protection of a delinquent employee in case
the disciplinary authority disagrees with
inquiry report. It is, therefore, incumbent
upon a disciplinary authority to specifically
record reasons for disagreeing with the
inquiry report.

17. In the considered opinion of
this Court, recording of reasons cannot be a
empty
formality
whereunder
the
disciplinary authority merely re-quotes
charges levelled as indicated in the charge
sheet.

18. In such circumstances, it would
be incumbent upon a disciplinary authority
to advert to findings recorded in the inquiry
report, material evidence, documentary or
otherwise and to indicate how the reasons
and findings recorded by the Enquiry
Officer does not fulfill the relevant aspects
required to be seen by the Enquiry Officer.

19. It is only thereafter that the
disciplinary
authority
can
specifically
indicate his reasons for disagreeing with
the inquiry report and for issuing a show
cuase notice as prescribed under Rule 9 (2)
of Rules 1999.

20. The aforesaid aspect has clearly
been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State
of Maharastra and another, (1999) 7 SCC
739 in the following manner:-

 30.
Recently,
a
three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Punjab National
Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Mishra
(1998) 7 SCC 84 = AIR 1998 SC 2713,
relying upon the earlier decisions of this
Court in State of Assam vs. Bimal Kumar
Pandit (1964) 2 SCR 1 = AIR 1963 SC
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1612; Institute of Chartered Acountants of
India vs. L.K. Ratna & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC
537 as also the Constitution Bench decision
in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad &
Ors. vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4
SCC 727 and the decision in Ram Kishan
vs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 157, has
held that :

"It will not stand to reason that
when the finding in favour of the delinquent
officers is proposed to be overturned by the
disciplinary authority then no opportunity
should be granted. The first stage of the
enquiry
is
not
completed
till
the
disciplinary authority has recorded its
findings. The principles of natural justice
would demand that the authority which
proposes to decide against the delinquent
officer must give him a hearing. When the
enquiring officer holds the charges to be
proved, then that report has to be given to
the delinquent officer who can make a
representation
before
the
disciplinary
authority takes further action which may be
prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When,
like in the present case, the enquiry report
is in favour of the delinquent officer but the
disciplinary authority proposes to differ
with such conclusions, then that authority
which is deciding against the delinquent
officer must give him an opportunity of
being heard for otherwise he would be
condemned
unheard.
In
departmental
proceedings,
what
is
of
ultimate
importance is the finding of the disciplinary
authority."

The Court further observed as
under :

"When the enquiry is conducted
by the enquiry officer, his report is not final
or
conclusive
and
the
disciplinary
proceedings do not stand concluded. The
disciplinary proceedings stand concluded
with the decision of the disciplinary
authority. It is the disciplinary authority
which can impose the penalty and not the
enquiry officer. Where the disciplinary
authority itself holds an enquiry, an
opportunity of hearing has to be granted by
him. When the disciplinary authority differs
with the view of the enquiry officer and
proposes to come to a different conclusion,
there is no reason as to why an opportunity
of hearing should not be granted. It will be
most unfair and inequitous that where the
charged officers succeed before the enquiry
officer, they are deprived of representing to
the disciplinary authority before that
authority differs with the enquiry officer's
report and, while recording a finding of
guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In
our opinion, in any such situation, the
charged officer must have an opportunity
to
represent
before
the
disciplinary
authority before final findings on the
charges are recorded and punishment
imposed." The Court further held that the
contrary view expressed by this Court in
State Bank of India vs. S.S. Koshal 1994
Supp.(2) SCC 468 and State of Rajasthan
vs. M.C. Saxena (1998) 3 SCC 385 was not
correct.

31. In view of the above, a
delinquent employee has the right of
hearing not only during the enquiry
proceedings conducted by the Enquiry
Officer into the charges levelled against
him but also at the stage at which those
findings are considered by the Disciplinary
Authority and the latter, namely, the
Disciplinary Authority forms a tenative
opinion that it does not agree with the
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. If
the findings recorded by the Enquiry
Officer are in favour of the delinquent and
it has been held that the charges are not
proved, it is all the more necessary to give
an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent
employee before reversing those findings.
The formation of opinion should be
7 All. Ram Prakash Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
63
tentative and not final. It is at this stage
that the delinquent employee should be
given an opportunity of hearing after he is
informed of the reasons on the basis of
which the Disciplinary Authority has
proposed to disagree with the findings of
the Enquiry Officer. This is in consonance
with the requirement of Article 311(2) of
the Constitution as it provides that a person
shall not be dismissed or removed or
reduced in rank except after an enquiry in
which he has been informed of the charges
against him and given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of
those charges. So long as a final decision is
not taken in the matter, the enquiry shall be
deemed to be pending. Mere submission of
findings to the Disciplinary Authority does
not bring about the closure of the enquiry
proceedings. The enquiry proceedings
would come to an end only when the
findings have been considered by the
Disciplinary Authority and the charges are
either held to be not proved or found to be
proved and in that event punishment is
inflicted upon the delinquent. That being
so, the "right to be heard" would be
available to the delinquent up to the final
stage. This right being a constitutional
right of the employee cannot be taken away
by any legislative enactment or Service
Rule including Rules made under Article
309 of the Constitution".

21. It is therefore evident that
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
has
clearly
enunciated that at the time of issuance of
show
cause
notice
issued
by
the
disciplinary authority after submission of
inquiry report that formation of opinion
pertaining to the delinquent employee and
charges levelled against him should be
tentative and not final and it is at this stage
that an opportunity of hearing is required to
be given after informing such employee of
the reasons on the basis of which the
disciplinary authority has proposed to
disagree with the findings of Enquiry
Officer.

22. The said aspect has again been
considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Punjab National Bank and
others vs. Kunj Bihari Misra (1998) 7
SCC 84 in the following manner:-

 "19. The result of the aforesaid
discussion would be that the principles of
natural justice have to be read into
Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof,
whenever
the
disciplinary
authority
deagrees with the enquiry authority on any
article of charge, then before it records its
own findings on such charge, it must
record its tentative reasons for such
disagreement and give to the delinguent
officer an opportunity to represent before it
records its findings. The report of the
enquiry officer containing its findings will
have to be conveyed and the delinquent
officer will have an opportunity to
persuade the disciplinary authority to
accept the favourable conclusin of the
enquiry officer. The principles of natural
justice, as we have already observed,
require the authority which has to take a
final decision and can impose a penalty, to
give an opportunity to the officer charged
of misconduct to file a representation
before the disciplinary authority records its
findings on the charges framed against the
officer."

23. In the case of Baldev Singh
Gandhi vs State of Punjab and others,
AIR 2002 SC 1124, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-

" 'Misconduct' has not been
defined in the Act. The word 'misconduct' is
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
antithesis of the word 'conduct.' Thus,
ordinarily the expression 'misconduct'
means
wrong
or
improper
conduct,
unlawful behaviour, misfeasance, wrong
conduct, misdemeanour etc."

24. It is also relevant that aspect of
misconduct has been defined by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Noratanmal
Chouraria vs. M.R. Murli & another
(2004) 5 SCC 689 in the following
manner:-

Misconduct, inter alia, envisages
breach of discipline, although it would not
be possible to lay down exhaustively as to
what
would
constitute
conduct
and
indiscipline, which, however, is wide
enough to include wrongful omission or
commission whether done of omitted to be
done intentionally or unintentionally. It
means, "improper behaviour, intentional
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a
rule or standard of behaviour".

Misconduct is said to be a
transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, where no discretion
is left except what necessity may demand, it
is a violation of definite law."

25. The aforesaid judgements have
been considered by a Division Bench of
this Court in the case of State of U.P. and
others vs. Raj Mani Singh and another
(2018) 36 LCD 644 in the following
manner:-

"15. The allegations at the best
show that the petitioner is a non serious or
less efficient employee. He was not very alert
or careful. It shows that he is less capable
official but in the absence of anything further,
mere carelessness or lack of seriousness of
an employee or failure to show better
efficiency upto desired level, ipso facto,
would not amount to 'misconduct' warranting
punishment under Rules. In J. Ahmed (supra)
Court held that Lack of efficiency or failure
to attain highest standards in discharge of
duties attached to public office would not
constitute
'misconduct',
unless
the
consequences
directly
attributable
to
negligence would be such as to be
irreparable or the resultant damage would be
so heavy that the degree of culpability would
be very high, which is not the case in hand."

26.
Upon
applicability
of
said
judgements in the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is evident that the inquiry report has clearly
adverted to the fact that there is no deliberate or
intentional dereliction of duty on the part of
petitioner in issuing the fitness certificate and
specifically adverts to the time lapse between
issuance of such a fitness certificate and the
accident happening almost two years thereafter.

27. In view of aforesaid judgements
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as
considered by a Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Raj Mani Singh (supra), no
aspect of misconduct can be attributed
against petitioner.

28. In view of discussions made
hereinabove,
the
impugned order dated
18.05.2022 along with the endorsement letter
dated 02.08.2023 is hereby quashed by issuing
a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ
in the nature of mandamus is issued
commanding opposite parties to provide benefit
of withheld service benefits to petitioner. The
relevant orders with regard to same shall be
passed within a period of eight weeks from the
date a certified copy of this order is produced
before the authority concerned.

29. Resultantly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear
their own costs.
7 All. Akansh Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors.
65
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 65
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 7181 of 2025

Akansh Choudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Naman Agarwal, Nipun Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Santosh Kumar Singh, Vivek
Kumar Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is warranted in disciplinary
proceedings where the inquiry was conducted in
accordance with law and there is some legal
evidence to support the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Departmental Inquiry -
Allegation
of
submission
of
fake
experience certificate - Removal from
service - Principles of Natural Justice -
Scope of judicial review under Article 226
- Adequacy and reliability of evidence not
open to re-appreciation
Held : High Court is not a Court of appeal over
the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry against a public servant.
It is concerned to determine whether the
enquiry is held by an authority competent in
that behalf, and according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules
of natural justice are not violated. Where there
is some evidence, which the authority entrusted
with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted
and which evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of
the charge, it is not the function of the High
Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to
review the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. Adequacy
or reliability of evidence cannot be looked into.
Petitioner was alleged to have submitted a fake
experience certificate for securing promotion to
the post of Manager. Inquiry was conducted on
eight dates; petitioner was granted opportunity
to cross-examine witnesses and to submit his
brief. The Inquiry Officer found the article of
charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after
considering the reply and report, imposed
penalty of "removal from service which shall not
be a disqualification for future employment",
which was affirmed in appeal. Court found that
the petitioner was granted full opportunity to
place his case during inquiry. He crossexamined witnesses at length. There was no
error in decision making process. The impugned
order was passed on legal evidence, no
interference warranted. Writ Petition dismissed.
[Paras 13 - 17] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhupendra Singh,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908

State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao,
AIR 1963 SC 1723

List of Acts
Article 226, Constitution of India; Regulation 28
of AAI Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal)
Regulations, 2003

List of Keywords
Disciplinary proceedings; Article 226; judicial
review;
no
evidence;
natural
justice;
proportionality; removal from service.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 10.05.2024 passed by Disciplinary
Authority and order dated 16.01.2025 passed by
Appellate Authority, Airports Authority of India.

APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Sri Naman Agarwal, Sri Nipun
Singh