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

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 458
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1191 of 2024
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanoj-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51656
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
Rules 7, 8 & 9 - Termination - Disciplinary
enquiry - Charged employee denied the
charges, but neither the documents relied
upon by the inquiry Officer was supplied
nor the list of the witnesses was given to
the petitioner - No show cause notice was
issued - Effect - Held, if the charged
employee denies the charges levelled
against him, the Inquiry Officer appointed
by
the
Disciplinary
Authority,
shall
proceed to call the witnesses proposed in
the chargesheet and record their oral
evidence in presence of the charged
employee and shall give an opportunity to
the charged employee to cross-examine
such witnesses - Held further, the Inquiry
Officer is in the position of an independent
adjudicator and acting in a quasi-judicial
authority with a duty enjoined upon him
that
even
in
the
absence
of
the
delinquent, he is to see whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold
that the charges are proved - The
procedure prescribed under Rule-7 has
not been followed by the Inquiry Officer.
(Para 4, 8, 12 and 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the appellant's case for regularization in
accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Act of 1982, within a period of two
months from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order. Since the
appellant-petitioner has superannuated on
31.03.2020, his claim for superannuation
benefits as per his entitlement shall be dealt
with, in accordance with law, within a
further period of six weeks, thereafter.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 458
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ A No. 1191 of 2024

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anand Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
Rules 7, 8 & 9 - Termination - Disciplinary
enquiry - Charged employee denied the
charges, but neither the documents relied
upon by the inquiry Officer was supplied
nor the list of the witnesses was given to
the petitioner - No show cause notice was
issued - Effect - Held, if the charged
employee denies the charges levelled
against him, the Inquiry Officer appointed
by
the
Disciplinary
Authority,
shall
proceed to call the witnesses proposed in
the chargesheet and record their oral
evidence in presence of the charged
employee and shall give an opportunity to
the charged employee to cross-examine
such witnesses - Held further, the Inquiry
Officer is in the position of an independent
adjudicator and acting in a quasi-judicial
authority with a duty enjoined upon him
that
even
in
the
absence
of
the
delinquent, he is to see whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold
that the charges are proved - The
procedure prescribed under Rule-7 has
not been followed by the Inquiry Officer.
(Para 4, 8, 12 and 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

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

2. Ministry of Finance & anr.Vs S.B. Ramesh;
AIR 1998 SC 853

3. Radhey Kant Khare Vs U.P. Cooperative
Sugar Factories Federation Ltd.; 2003 (1) AWC
704

4. Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2014 0
SCC (All) 868

5. Writ A No. 71261 of 2005; Brijesh Kumar
Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
21.11.2005

6. Writ A No. 3786 of 2022; St. of U.P. & ors. Vs
St. Public Service Tribunal & ors. decided on
25.3.2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anand Tiwari, learned
counsel for petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition inter-alia with the
following prayer:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned
termination
order
dated
30.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3.
3 All. Sanoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459

Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
authority concern to pay the subsistence
allowances to the petitioner for his
suspension period i.e. 14.10.2022 to
30.12.2023."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the petitioner was
initially appointed as a 'Dresser' in Animal
Husbandary Department on 28.07.2004 and
subsequently, promoted on the post of
Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari' on 3.1.2017.
After 18 years of service, one stranger
made a compliant against the petitioner
with regard to the qualification and
certificates of High School submitted by
the petitioner at the time of his joining. On
the basis of the alleged compliant, a
preliminary inquiry was initiated against
the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended
on 14.10.2022 and the charge-sheet has
been served on 03.4.2023 upon the
petitioner. The petitioner was also served
second charge sheet on 05.08.2023 and
thereafter the petitioner was terminated
from services on 30.12.2023 by the
respondent No.3/Additional Director II,
Animal Husbandry Department Meerut
Mandal Meerut.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that only on the basis of the
preliminary inquiry, the service of the
permanent Government Employee cannot
be terminated and while terminating the
services of the petitioner, the procedure
prescribed under U.P. Government Servant
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999
(hereinafter referred as "Rules 1999") were
not followed. It is argued that no oral
evidence has been taken produced and the
petitioner has neither given any opportunity
to cross examine the witness nor he was
permitted to produce his defence, although
an ex-parte enquiry was initiated, the
Inquiry Officer is duty bound to record the
evidence and follow all the procedure
prescribed under the Rules. It is argued that
the documents relied upon by the inquiry
Officer was never supplied to the petitioner
nor the list of the witnesses has been given
to the petitioner. It is argued that no show
cause notice has been issued to the
petitioner. It is argued that the respondents
are duty bound to follow the provisions of
Rules, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of Rules, 1999 in
exercise of powers conferred by the
provisions
of
Article
309
of
the
Constitution of India. It is argued that the
aforesaid order is arbitrary and passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice
and Rules, 1999, and prays that the same be
quashed and the petitioner is entitled for
subsistence
allowance
during
the
suspension period, i.e., 14.10.2022 to
30.12.2023.

5. On the other hand learned Standing
counsel argued that a complete procedure
as prescribed under the Rules, 1999 was
complied with by the respondents before
passing the order of termination, hence the
same does not call for any interference by
this Court.

6. When a query raised by this Court
that while passing the impugned order, the
procedure prescribed under Rule 7(iv) and
7(x) of the Rules, 1999 has been complied
by the authorities or not. it is argued by
learned Standing counsel that the procedure
prescribed in the aforesaid rules were not
followed by the authorities but the order
was passed after taking legal opinion from
the District Government counsel.

7. In order to examine the issue as to
whether the procedure prescribed under the
Rules for holding departmental inquiry in
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respect of imposition of major penalty have
been followed or not, it is necessary to
reproduce Rules 7,8 and 9 of the Rules,
1999, which read as follows:

"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)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(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, the Inquiry Officer shall call and
record the oral 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 given 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 Witness 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.

(x)
Where
the
charged
Government servant does not appear on the
date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of
the proceeding in spite 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)

(xii)

8. Submission of inquiry report.--
When the inquiry is complete, the Inquiry
Officer shall submit its inquiry report to the
Disciplinary Authority along with all the
record of the inquiry. The Inquiry Report
shall contain a sufficient record of brief
facts, the evidence and statement of the
findings on each charge and the reasons
thereof. The Inquiry Officer shall not make
any recommendation about the penalty.

9. Action on Inquiry Report.-- (1)
The
Disciplinary
Authority
may,
for
reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the
case for re-inquiry to the same or any other
Inquiry Officer under intimation tot he
charged Government servant. The Inquiry
Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the
inquiry from such stage as directed by the
Disciplinary Authority, according to the
provisions of Rule 7.

(2)

(3)

(4) If the Disciplinary Authority,
having regard to its findings on all or any
of charges is of the opinion that any penalty
specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on
the charged Government servant, he shall
give a copy of the inquiry report and his
findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the
charged Government servant and require
3 All. Sanoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
him to submit his representation if he so
desires, within a reasonable specified time.
The Disciplinary Authority shall, having
regard to all the relevant records relating to
the inquiry and representation of the
charged Government servant, if any, and
subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these
rules, pass a reasoned speaking order
imposing one or more penalties mentioned
in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate
the same to the charged Government
servant."

8. From the aforesaid rules, it is
apparently clear that if the charged
employee denies the charges levelled
against him, the Inquiry Officer appointed
by the Disciplinary Authority, shall proceed
to call the witnesses proposed in the
charge-sheet and record their oral evidence
in presence of the charged employee and
shall give an opportunity to the charged
employee to cross-examine such witnesses.
After recording the aforesaid evidence, the
Inquiry Officer shall call and record the
oral evidence, which the charged employee
desired in his written statement to be
produced in support of his case. Rule-7
further contemplates that the Inquiry officer
may examine any witness to give evidence
or
require
any
person
to
produce
documents before him in accordance with
the Rules, 1999. The procedure as detailed
in the aforesaid Rules is in conformity with
the requirement of principles of natural
justice and is therefore, necessary to be
adhered to in letter and in spirit.

9. From perusal of the above it
transpires that complete procedure has been
prescribed under the aforesaid Rules, the
manner in which the inquiry could be
conducted. From the perusal of the order
impugned it is clear that no such procedure
whatsoever has been followed by the
respondent authority. It also reveals that the
decision has been taken against the
petitioner only after making illegal opinion.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again
in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2
SCC 772 has held that the Inquiry Officer
has been held to be in the position of an
independent adjudicator and acting in a
quasi-judicial
authority
with
a
duty
enjoined upon him that even in the absence
of the delinquent, he is to see whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold
that the charges are proved. It was also
observed that in a case where no oral
evidence was examined and the documents
have not been proved, the charges could not
be held to have been proved against the
delinquent employee.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Ministry of Finance and Another
vs. S.B. Ramesh, reported in AIR 1998
Supreme Court 853, has held that even in
ex-parte disciplinary proceedings, wherein
the employee is not participating in the
departmental Inquiry, it is necessary for the
Inquiry Officer to fix a date for recording
evidence in support of the charges and
intimation of the date so fixed must be
communicated to the employee concerned
so that the employee concerned may crossexamine the witnesses. It has further been
clarified that no documents can be received
in evidence unless proved by some
competent person, who has come-forward
in evidence, un-proved documents cannot
be relied upon for brining home the charges
against the said employee.

12. The Inquiry Officer has been held
to be in the position of an independent
adjudicator and acting in a quasi-judicial
authority with a duty enjoined upon him
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that even in the absence of the delinquent,
he is to see whether the unrebutted
evidence is sufficient to hold that the
charges are proved. It was also observed
that in a case where no oral evidence was
examined and the documents have not been
proved, the charges could not be held to
have been proved against the delinquent
employee.

13. A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Radhey Kant Khare vs. U.P.
Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation
Ltd. reported in 2003 (1) AWC 704, has
held that after a charge sheet is given to the
employee, an oral inquiry is must whether
the employee requests for it or not. Further,
it is mandatory to give a notice to him
indicating the date, time and place of the
enquiry, the principle being that chargesheeted employee should not only know the
charges against him but should also know
the evidence against him so that he can
properly reply to the same.

14. The Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Kaptan Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and another reported in
2014 0 SCC (All) 868 held that 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 ex parte. 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
relevant paragraphs of the judgement is
reproduced hereinbelow:-

12. 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 ex parte.
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.

13.
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 (ex parte).
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. Reference
may be made in this regard to the
judgments of the Apex Court in State of
Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi
v. Punjab National Bank, 2009 2S 570,
State of U.P. v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1996 10
SCC 742, and The Imperial Tobacco
Company of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR
1962 SC 1348, and the judgements of this
Court in R.K. Singh v. Director/Appointing
Authority, Govind Ballabh Pant Social
Science Institute, Jnunsi, Allahabad and
another, 2001 2 UPLBEC 1282 and
Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and others, (2001)
2 EC 1475. The aforesaid requirement of
law has not been followed in the instant
case.

14. Rule 10 deals with the
procedure for imposing minor penalty. Rule
8 and 9 deals with the submission of the
3 All. Sangeeta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
enquiry report and action to be taken based
thereon.

15. In spite of the aforesaid rules
we find tht in the instant case, a major
punishment has been imposed without
following due procedure under Rule 7.

15. Similar view has already been
taken by the coordiante Bench of this Court
in case of Brijesh Kumar Tripathi Versus
State of U.P. And others, passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No (Writ-A) No. 71261
of 2005 on 21.11.2005 as well as by the
Division Bench of this Court in case of
State of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue
and 4 Others vs. State Public Service
Tribunal and 4 Others, passed in Writ-A
No. 3786 of 2022 on 25.3.2022.

16. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

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.

18. In this view of the matter, this
Court is satisfied that the procedure
prescribed under Rule-7 of the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999, has not been followed
by the Inquiry Officer. Further, the enquiry
is not made in accordance with the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ministry of Finance and another
(Supra)

19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
fact, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023
passed by respondent no.3- Additional
Director-II,
Animal
Husbandry
Department, Meerut Mandal, Meerut, is set
aside.

20. The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs

21.

The
concerned
respondent
authority is at liberty to pass afresh order
after giving notice and opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner after following the
provisions as provided under the Rules,
1999.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 463
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 1509 of 2022

Sangeeta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gulrez Khan, Sri Javed Husain Khan, Sri
Pramod Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rakesh Pathak, Sri Saurabh
Srivastava

A. Service Law - Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 - Ch. II, Reg. 3(1) - Seniority -
U.P. Hindi Sansthan Employees Service
Rules No. 1983 - Rule 3 and 5 - Both