# Ram Swaroop Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 543
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-27
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 27948 of 2010
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-swaroop-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54256
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

2 All. Ram Swaroop Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
account of circumstances beyond his control. He had indulged in misconduct, of which he had not
been honourably acquitted. It was in those circumstances that Regulations 39, 46 and 47 were
interpreted to empower the Bank to deny salary on the principle of 'no work no pay' to the
employee concerned. This decision stands on the edifice of a completely different principle, which
is not even remotely attracted to the facts of the present case, as already indicated.

19. In the totality of circumstances, we are of opinion that the respondents cannot deny the
petitioners their arrears of salary for the different periods of time payable to petitioner Nos.1, 2 and
3, and the impugned order is manifestly illegal.

20. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.10.2024
passed by the Director, Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow is hereby quashed. A
mandamus is issued to the Director, Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow, the Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute, Naini, Prayagraj and the Principal, Government Industrial
Training Institute, Karaundi, Varanasi, to ensure, amongst themselves, payment of arrears of salary
to petitioner No.1 for the period 19.01.2017 to 02.01.2020, petitioner No.2 for the period
01.01.2017 to 07.01.2020, and, petitioner No.3 for the period 01.01.2017 to 16.12.2019, within a
period of two months of receipt of a copy of this order.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Director, Training and Employment,
U.P., Lucknow, the Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Naini, Prayagraj and the
Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Karaundi, Varanasi by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 543
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ A No. 27948 of 2010

Ram Swaroop Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of non-compliance of principle of oral hearing by the Inquiry Officer, even in the absence of
provision on it in the Rules of 1999.

Headnotes
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(A) Service law - Termination - Inquiry proceeding - Principle of natural justice - Opportunity of
oral hearing - The delinquent employee, who was Lekhpal, was charged with of treating a
person as dead and passing the mutation order - No date and time was ever fixed by the Inquiry
Officer for any further hearing - No opportunity of oral hearing was given to the petitioner -
Effect - Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 require no oral inquiry to the delinquent employee before
concluding the inquiry proceedings - Relevance : (E-1)
Held : There is no express requirement in the said rules for according any oral inquiry to the delinquent
employee before concluding the inquiry proceedings. However, in Kaptan Singh's case, the Division Bench of
this Court while interpreting the aforesaid Rules, relying upon the general principles of law as held in Roop
Singh Negi's case and other judgments relied upon by the Division Bench, has interpreted the aforesaid Rules
so as to mean that after submission of the reply by the delinquent employee or even in the absence of reply
by the delinquent employee to the charge-sheet, it is implicit in the aforesaid Rules, though not expressed,
that there is requirement of holding of an oral inquiry as it is sine qua non for providing reasonable
opportunity to defend and it is part of principles of natural justice under Articles 311 and 14 of the
Constitution of India - In view of the aforesaid binding precedent in Kaptan Singh's case, it is an implicit duty
of the Inquiry Officer to afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before concluding the
inquiry proceedings. Since, such opportunity has never been granted in the instant case to the petitioner
herein, thus, the inquiry report without affording such opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee to
the petitioner cannot be relied upon for termination of service of the petitioner herein. Thus, the entire
proceedings against the petitioner is vitiated. [Para 24 and 25]

Case Law Cited
Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570; Divl. Forest Officer vs. Madhusudhan Rao,
(2008) 3 SCC 469; Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney, (2009) 4 SCC 240;
Satyendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another arising out of SLP (Civil) No.(2). 29758 of 2018 dated
18.11.2024; State of U.P. and Others vs. Mam Chand Tyagi and Another, 2017 (6) ADJ 723 (DB)(LB); Writ A
No. 25240 of 2014, Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 14.05.2014; Writ A No. 1498 of
2024, Rajesh Kumar Mall vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 15.02.2024; Moni Shankar vs. Union of
India, (2008) 3 SCC 484 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 14 and 311; Indian Penal Code - Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 477-A and 120B;
Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 - Rules 7.

List of Keywords
Mutation order, First Information Report, Final report, Charge-sheet, Opportunity of oral hearing, Inquiry
report, Termination order, Statutory appeal, Principle of natural justice, Disciplinary proceeding, Reasonable
opportunity to defend, Binding precedent.

Case Arising From
Termination order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority and Order dated 30.04.2010 passed
by the appellate authority.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Ashok Khare, Sr. Adv.; Rakesh Kumar Shukla, Rakesh Kumar Shukla, Santosh
Kumar Srivastava, Suresh C. Dwivedi.
Advs. for the Respondents : Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, Adl. C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girijesh
Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2 All. Ram Swaroop Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing of the order
dated 17.12.2009, passed by respondent no.3, whereby the services of the petitioner herein were
terminated and also seeking quashing of the order dated 30.04.2010, whereby the appeal preferred
by the appellant herein was dismissed by the respondent no.2.

FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case are the petitioner herein was appointed on the post of Lekhpal in
the year, 1980 and in the year, 2008, he was posted in the area of Domagor of Tehsil and District-
Jhansi. On 04.10.2008, an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 686 of 2008 under Sections 419, 420, 467,
471, 477-A and 120B I.P.C. was registered at the behest of the Revenue Inspector, Shri Buddhi
Prakash, making out the allegations that the petitioner has treated one Brij Kishore as dead and
passed a mutation order in favour of Rajendra Singh and Hari Mohan. In the aforesaid case, after
investigation a final report was submitted on 21.10.2008.

4. In the final order it was categorically observed by the Investigation Officer (IO) that since
the said Brij Kishore had left his house in the year, 1988 and has taken Sanyas and renowned the
world, but his sons and relatives continued to search for him sufficiently for long period upto 1997.
When the said Brij Kishore could not be traced out by them, in the year 1997 his sons and relatives
have performed his last rites treating he is dead and thereafter they have applied for mutation of
their names in place of his father. Since, the entire village has accepted that said Brij Kishore has
died, in such circumstances it is further observed that Village Pradhan has also certified that he is
dead. However, later on in the year, 2006, said Brij Kishore came in the village in the form of a
Sadhu and did not raise any objection with regard to the mutation of his property in the name of his
legal heirs i.e., his sons. Since, the neighbors of the land belonging to the sons of the said Brij
Kishore, wanted to purchase the land from Hari Mohan etc., which they have refused to sell.
Having regard to this he has made the complaints to the Higher Officials, therefore, it was
concluded that there was no criminality attached to the action taken by the petitioner herein in
passing the mutation order in favor of the legal heirs of the said Brij Kishore, on the basis of the
Death Certificate issued by the Village Pradhan.

5. Subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid final report, another F.I.R. being Case Crime No.
2293 of 2008 under Section 420 I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner herein alleging therein that
the petitioner herein had torned the order ?o?o-11 with regard to the Khata No. 349, whereby an
alive person was shown as dead and name of his heirs were mutated.

6. The criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case was stayed by this Court on a Criminal Misc.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17392 of 2009 filed by the sons of the said Brij
Kishore. Subsequent thereto, vide order dated 11.11.2008, the petitioner herein was suspended on
the allegation that he has torned the order ?o?o-11-? relating to Khata No. 349 of the year, 1359
Fasli, while inspecting the aforesaid file. Thereupon, on 21.03.2009, the inquiry officials has issued
the following charge-sheet against the petitioner herein:
कार्ायलर् र्नर्ुजक्त एिं िण्डाचधकािी / जजलाचधकािी, झााँसी
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
सांख्या: 1586/रा०. ऑ.०-वव०का०/2004-05 दिनाांकः माचथ 21, 2009
आिोप पत्र
िी रामस्वरूप शुक्ला,
लेखपाल (ननलन्म्ित),
तहसील-झााँसी।

तत्कालीन उप न्जलाधधकारी झााँसी के आिेश सांख्या-781/एस०िी०-वव०का०/2008.09 दिनााँक
11.11.2008 द्वारा आपको ननलन्म्ित ननमा गया तथा आपके ववरुद्ध वविागीय कायथवाही प्रारम्ि की गई।
आपको ननम्नभलखखत आरोप से आरोवपत ककया जाता है :-

आरोप सांध्या-1

आप द्वारा राजस्व अभिलेखालय, कलैक्ट्रेि, झााँसी में पहुाँचकर ग्राम सेरसा तहसील मोंठ, न्जला झााँसी
के खाता सांख्या 349 की सन् 1359 फ० की खतौनी का मुआयना करने के िहाने उसमें से प०क०-11-क का
आिेश चोरी से फाड भलया गया। इस प्रकार आप राजस्व अभिलेखों को नष्ि करने के िोषी हैं।

उक्त आरोप की पुन्ष्ि में ननम्नभलखखत साक्ष्य पठनीय है :-

(1) राजस्व अभिलेखपाल की आख्या दिनााँक 25.9.2008

(2) प्रिारी अधधकारी राजस्व अभिलेखागार की आख्या दिनोंक- 25.9.2008.

(3) प्रथम सूचना ररपोिथ मु०अ०सां2293/08 धारा 420आई.पी.सी.।

आरोप सांख्या-2

आप व्िारा आय से अधधक ननम्नभलखखत सम्पवि अन्जथत की गई है न्जस भलए कोई अनुमनत प्राप्त नहीां
की गई है।

1. कस्वा मऊरानीपुर में गुरसराय रोड पर स्िेशन के सामने कीमती मकान लगिग 15 लाख का व
सत्सांग िवन लगिग एक लाख रूपये का िना रखा है।

2. झााँसी नगर में लक्ष्मीगेि रोड पर कैलाश रेजीडेन्सी में िवन सां० 110 कोमती 20 लाख रूपये है, में
ननवास करते हैं जो आप द्वारा िय ककया गया है ककन्तु कोई अनुमनत प्राप्त नहीां की गई।

3. तीन पुबत्रयों की शािी में 12 लाख रूपये व्यय ककया है तथा 20 िीघा िूभम है।

4. आपके रहन-सहन का स्तर आय से अधधक व्यय का है।

उक्त आरोप की पुन्ष्ि में ननम्नभलखखत साक्ष्य पठनीय हैं:-
2 All. Ram Swaroop Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
547

(1) ननरीक्षक स्थानीय अभिसूचना इकाई की आख्या दिनाांक 11.1.2009

आिोप सं०-३

आप द्वारा बिना ककसी आधार के गााँवसिा की मूजयवान िूभम मौजा नयागााँव की खतौनी फ० के गािा
सां0 790 भम रकिा 0.894 को िेणी 5 िांजर से ननरस्त ककर िेणी-6 रास्ता अांककत करने की आख्या दिनाांक
8.12.2003 प्रस्तुत की गई थी जिकक मौके पर ककसी प्रकार की सडक नहीां थी और न ही आज सडक है। इस
प्रकार आप फजी आख्या प्रस्तुत कर फजी तौर पर िूभम पररवतथन की आख्या प्रेवषत करने के िोषी हैं।

उक्त आरोप की पुन्ष्ि में ननम्नभलखखत साक्ष्य पठनीय हैं:-

(1) आख्या दिनोंक 8.12.2003 की प्रनतभलवप।

(2) तहसीलिार झााँसी की आख्या दिनााँक 26.2.2009 की प्रनत।

(2) परगनाधधकारी झॉसी के आिेश दिनााँक 17.12.2003 की प्रनतः।

(3) परगनाधधकारी झााँसी के आिेश दिनाांक 04.03.2009 की प्रनत।

उपरोक्त आरोप पत्र के सम्िन्ध में आप अपना उिर 15 दिवस के अन्िर जााँच अधधकारी अथवा उप
न्जलाधधकारी झााँसी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करे।

आपसे पुनः अपेक्षा की जाती है कक आप ननयत समय पर ही अपना उिर प्रस्तुत करना सुननन्श्चत करें।
यनत आपका उिरः समय के अन्िर प्राप्त नहीां होता है तो आपके ववरूद्ध एक पक्षीय कायथवाही की जायेगी।
यह कक इस कायथवाही में यदि ककसी से आप न्जरह अथवा गिाही अपेक्षक्षत हो तो उसका नाम व पता सदहत
न्जरह की ववषय वस्तु अपने उिर में अांककत करें।
(डा०मुिु कुमार स्वामी िी.)
ननयुन्क्त एवां िण्डाधधकारी
/ उप न्जलाधधकारी झााँसी।

पत्राांक एवां दिनॉक उक्त ।

प्रनतभलवपः-तहसीलिार, झॉसी को आरोप पत्र िो प्रनतयों में इस आशय से कक एक प्रनत आरोपी कमथचारी
पर तामील कराकर सदिनॉक पूणथ हस्ताक्षर प्राप्त कर आवश्यक कायथवाही करें तथा जााँच आख्या आरोप पत्र
का उिर प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त अधोहस्ताक्षरी को समक्ष आिेशाथथ प्रस्तुत करें।

(डा०मुिु कुमार स्वामी िी.)
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ननयुन्क्त एवां िण्डाधधकारी
/ उप न्जलाधधकारी झााँसी।

7. In the aforesaid charge-sheet, the inquiry officer has not proposed any of the witnesses to be
examined in support of the charges.

8. In the reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet as well, the petitioner herein has also not proposed
any of the witnesses to be examined in support of his defense. Though, he has submitted the
following documents along with his reply dated 23.06.2009:

"सांलग्नक :-

1. िूभम प्रिांधक सभमनत डोमागोर प्रस्ताव की छाया प्रनत।

2. िी कैलाश नारायण गुप्ता दिया गया शपथपत्र।

3. िी लक्ष्मीिेवी द्वारा दिया गया शपथ पत्र।

4. थाना नवािाि व थाना पूांछ की एफ. आई. आर. की छाया प्रनत।

5. अभिलेखापाल िी िृजेश िीवास्तव व ओमप्रकाश आदि के ब्यानों की छाया प्रनत।

6. अभिलेखागार में दिया गये प्रश्नोिरी की छाया प्रनत ।"

9. After submission of the reply by the petitioner herein, Inquiry Officer has proceeded to
examine the charge-sheet, reply submitted by the petitioner and the documents available on record
and on the basis thereof, he has recorded its finding with regard to all the three charges without
giving any opportunity of oral hearing to the petitioner herein or without examining any witnesses
in support of the case of the department and with regard to the first charge of tearing of the order
?o?o-11 from the revenue records, it has been found that Charge No.1 has been proved against the
petitioner. Charge No.2 has been found to have been proved partially against the petitioner and
Charge No.3 found to have been proved against the petitioner.

10. In the inquiry report dated 31.10.2009. After receipt of the said inquiry report by the SDM,
the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice dated 10.11.2000 against the petitioner herein
along with copy of the inquiry report. Thereupon, the petitioner herein has submitted a detailed
reply on 11.12.2009 to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thereupon, vide impugned order dated
17.12.2009, the Disciplinary Authority has terminated the services of the petitioner herein.

11. Against the aforesaid termination order dated 17.12.2009, the petitioner herein has
approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1760 of 2010. The aforesaid writ
petition was disposed of vide judgement and order dated 18.01.2010, directing the petitioner herein
to file the statutory appeal within 15 days before the District Magistrate, Jhansi. Thereupon, the
petitioner herein has filed his statutory appeal on 01.02.2010 before the District Magistrate. The
District Magistrate vide impugned order dated 30.04.2010 has considered the submissions made in
the appeal by the appellant herein and thereupon the Appellate Authority has found the Charges
2 All. Ram Swaroop Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
549
No. 1 and 3 to have been proved against the appellant and Charge No.2 was partially proved
against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the instant petition has been
filed by the petitioner herein.

SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER

12. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while concluding the inquiry, the
Inquiry Officer has not followed the procedure as prescribed under Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999, neither the Inquiry Officer has examined any of the
witnesses in support of the documents relied upon by the petitioner herein nor any opportunity of
oral hearing has ever been accorded by the Inquiry Officer to explain to the charges leveled by the
Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the entire inquiry proceeding is vitiated and cannot be relied upon for
his dismissal.

13. It has further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority
has also not taken any independent decision after considering his reply to the show cause notice
and the charges leveled against the petitioner herein. The Disciplinary Authority has simply relied
upon the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the same has been upheld and the
termination order has been passed against the petitioner herein. Likewise, the Appellate Authority
has also not applied its mind to the facts of the case and has simply relied upon the findings
recorded by the Inquiry Officer and dismissed the appeal.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after submission of reply to the
charge-sheet by the petitioner, it was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to fix a date and time for oral
hearing in the matter, giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein before concluding
the inquiry proceedings, the same has not been done in the instant case by Inquiry Officer.
Therefore, the entire inquiry proceedings is vitiated and against the settled principles of natural
justice and against the provisions of 1999 Rules as has been interpreted by various judgments of
this Court as well by the Apex Court.

15. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Roop
Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, Divl. Forest Officer v. Madhusudhan
Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan
Varshney, (2009) 4 SCC 240 and Satyendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another arising out of
SLP (Civil) No.(2). 29758 of 2018 dated 18.11.2024. He has also relied upon the judgements of
the Division Benches of this Court in State of U.P. and Others vs. Mam Chand Tyagi and
Another, [2017 (6) ADJ 723 (DB)(LB)] of Lucknow Bench, Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P. and
Another (Writ A No. 25240 of 2014, judgement dated 14.05.2014) and the judgements. He has
further relied upon the judgements of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Mall
vs. State of U.P. and Another (Writ A No. 1498 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024).

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF STATE

16. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that Rule
7(iii) of 1999 Rules provides that while issuing the charge-sheet, it is incumbent upon the Inquiry
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officer to name all the witnesses and also the documents which are to be relied upon by the Inquiry
Officer during the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee. From the perusal of
the charge-sheet, it is apparent that though certain documents have been mentioned in the chargesheet, however, the Disciplinary Authority has not proposed any witnesses to be examined in
support of the charges. Likewise, Rule 7(iv) also provides that delinquent employee is also
supposed to categorically mention the names of the witnesses which he wish to propose to be
examined during inquiry and also the documents to be relied upon by the delinquent employee.
From the perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner herein, it is apparent that he has not
proposed any witnesses to be examined during inquiry proceedings in support of his version.
Though, he has relied upon certain documents which were annexed along with reply.

17. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that since both sides
have not proposed any witness to to be examined during inquiry proceedings, therefore, there was
no occasion for the Inquiry Officer to examine any of the witnesses during the inquiry proceedings.
Therefore, he was not obliged to fix any date and time in the instant disciplinary proceedings.
Further, 1999 Rules do not provide that any oral hearing be accorded prior to concluding the
disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent employee. In view thereof, there is no infirmity in
the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer in the instant case. So far as the disciplinary
proceedings as well as the Appellate Authority are concerned, they have given detailed discussion
with regard to the charges leveled and the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as the explanation
submitted by the petitioner herein and thereupon the Disciplinary Authority having found the
charges against the petitioner having been proved, has passed the order of termination of the
petitioner herein. Likewise, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, the Appellate Authority
has also applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, explanation submitted by the
petitioner herein as well as the material available on record and thereupon has upheld the
termination of the petition by dismissing the appeal. Therefore, there is no illegality in the entire
procedure adopted in the instant case by the respondents. Accordingly, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State prayed for dismissal of the instant petition.

ANALYSIS

18. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court
has carefully gone through the record of the case. The facts of the case have already been noted
hereinabove. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to take note of the Rule 7 of Rules
1999, which reads as under:

"7. Procedure for imposing major penalties.-Before imposing any major penalty on a
Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner:

i.The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority
subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges.

ii.The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be
reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall
be approved by the disciplinary authority: Provided that where the appointing authority is
2 All. Ram Swaroop Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
551
Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary; as the
case may be, of the concerned department.

iii.The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the
charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed
documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral
evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet.

iv.The charged Government servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his
defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of issue of
charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the
charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be
informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will
be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry
ex parte.

v.The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidence mentioned therein
and list of witnesses and their statements, if any, shall be served on the charged Government
servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the
charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by
publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation: Provided that where the documentary
evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government
servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer.

vi.Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry
Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission.

vii.Where the charged Government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall
proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in
presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such
witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidence which the charged Government servant desired in
his written statement to be produced in his defence:

Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call
a witness.

viii.The Inquiry Officer may summon any witness to give evidence or require any person to
produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents)
Act, 1976.

ix.The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or
from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to
charges.
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

x.Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry
or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of
the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry
Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the
charged Government servant.

xi.The disciplinary authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by an order
appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner,to be known as "Presenting Officer" to
present on its behalf the case in support of the charge.

xii.The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to
present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the
Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner of the disciplinary
authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits: Provided that this rule shall
not apply in following cases:

(i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has
led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that for reasons to be recorded by it in
writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these
rules; or

(iii)Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is
expedient to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these rules."

19. So far as the judgment in Roop Singh Negi (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court has
relied upon the general principle to be applied in the disciplinary proceedings in the cases where
there are no specific rules in this regard. In Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Apex Court has observed
as under:

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

23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority
are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences,
appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the
confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by
2 All. Ram Swaroop Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553
the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration.
The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision
must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence
Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are.
As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and
conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer
apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be,
can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof."

20. Likewise, in Moni Shankar v. Union of India [(2008) 3 SCC 484 : (2008), the Apex
Court held as under:

"17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one. Although the provisions of the
Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to
be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to
whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant
piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded
therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal
principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the
evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its
entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on
such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was
within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is
giving way to the doctrine of proportionality."

21. In Satyendra Singh (supra), the Apex Court though has referred to the 1999 Rules, has
observed as under:

"17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the
witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of
the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and
Nirmala J. Jhala, : (2013) 4 SCC 301 , we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings
conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally
vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the
department in support of the charges."

22. In Kaptan Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the Rule 7
of Rules 1999, has observed as under:

"Even if the delinquent does not demand personal hearing or does not give the names of
witnesses with brief synopsis of points on which he wishes to examine or cross-examine the
witnesses, the Inquiry Officer is not absolved from fixing a date of enquiry, with intimation to the
delinquent and if he does not appear on the date fixed to either adjourn the enquiry to some
other date or to proceed exparte, as he deems fit. In either eventuality, he is required to hold
inquiry, if delinquent is present, in his presence, if he is absent, exparte. If oral evidence is
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
referred in the charge-sheet, same is required to be recorded/examined, if not, even then the
documentary evidence is required to be examined in the light of the charges for ascertaining the
truth in respect thereof. The delinquent is also entitled to be intimated the date for oral enquiry,
wherein the Inquiry Officer should confront the delinquent with the charges and the evidence in
support thereof, put relevant queries to him, elicit and record his replies/response in respect
thereof. Such oral enquiry is necessary as it gives an opportunity, to the delinquent to explain his
conduct and to the Inquiry Officer to have a better perspective of the controversy, as, it is not
always possible to discern the truth from written replies and documents which may not
necessarily convey the complete truth. Even where the delinquent does not dispute the veracity of
the documentary evidence, oral enquiry is necessary as he may still have an explanation to offer.
"

"The Rules of 1999 also require the Inquiry Officer to hold an enquiry into the charges
except where the delinquent admits the charges (Rule 7vi), in such an eventuality, he can submit a
report straight away. As per Sub Rule (iv) and (x) of Rule 7 if the delinquent does not file his
written statement or does not appear, the Investigating officer shall proceed exparte. Where he files
the written statement and denies the charges, as in the instant case, it shall proceed as per Rule
7(vii) and the following sub rules.

The reference to "documentary evidence" in Rule 7(iii) and (v) clearly indicates that the
same have to be examined, as aforesaid, on the date to be fixed for enquiry, whether in the
presence of the delinquent or in absentia (exparte). This requirement though not express is
implicit in the aforesaid rules, as is the requirement of holding an oral enquiry,as it is a sine qua
non for providing reasonable opportunity to defend and is part of the principles of natural
justice under Article 311 and 14 of the Constitution."

23. In Rajesh Kumar Mall (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as
under:

"17. It is well settled law that during enquiry proceeding the principle of natural justice
must be followed i.e. the documents relied upon, be provided to the charged employee, opportunity
to adduce the evidence be provided, statement of witnesses for establishing the charges be recorded
and opportunity to cross examine the witnesses be provided, whereas in the present case no such
procedure has been followed. The petitioner has not been given opportunity to adduce the evidence
and cross examine the witnesses and no witnesses has been examined by the enquiry officer in
support of the charges levelled against the petitioner. "

CONCLUSION

24. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is apparent that in case if neither in the
charge-sheet nor in the reply submitted by the delinquent employee, any witness has been
proposed, there is no express requirement in the said rules for according any oral inquiry to the
delinquent employee before concluding the inquiry proceedings. However, in Kaptan Singh
(supra), the Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the aforesaid Rules, relying upon the
general principles of law as held in Roop Singh Negi (supra) and other judgments relied upon by
2 All. Raghvendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
the Division Bench, has interpreted the aforesaid Rules so as to mean that after submission of the
reply by the delinquent employee or even in the absence of reply by the delinquent employee
to the charge-sheet, it is implicit in the aforesaid Rules, though not expressed, that there is
requirement of holding of an oral inquiry as it is sine qua non for providing reasonable
opportunity to defend and it is part of principles of natural justice under Articles 311 and 14
of the Constitution of India.

25. Admittedly, in the instant case, it is evident from the record as well as and from the inquiry
report itself that after submission of reply to the charge-sheet by the petitioner herein, no date and
time has ever been fixed for any further hearing in the instant case by the Inquiry Officer,
nor any opportunity of oral hearing to the petitioner has ever been granted. In view of the
aforesaid binding precedent in Kaptan Singh (supra), it is an implicit duty of the Inquiry Officer to
afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before concluding the inquiry
proceedings. Since, such opportunity has never been granted in the instant case to the petitioner
herein, thus, the inquiry report without affording such opportunity of hearing to the delinquent
employee to the petitioner cannot be relied upon for termination of service of the petitioner herein.
Thus, the entire proceedings against the petitioner is vitiated. In view thereof, the orders passed by
the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority are not sustainable in law.

26. Therefore, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority and order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Appellant Authority are set-aside.
Ordinarily, while setting aside the order of termination order, the matter is required to be remitted
back for concluding the disciplinary proceedings from the stage it was vitiated. However, since the
petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation on 09.01.2018, no fruitful purpose would
be served in remitting back the matter at this stage, hence, this Court refrains from remitting back
the matter to the Disciplinary Authority.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 555
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 62515 of 2017

Raghvendra Prasad Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Jurisdiction of District Magistrate to intervene into the matter relating to Secondary Education Department.
(2) Liability of management to pay exemplary costs for its mala fide in scuttling the career of employee.
(3) Effect of non-communicated adverse entry to the entitlement of selection grade and promotion.
(4) Effect of an illegal termination order to the entitlement of selection grade and promotion.