# Shardindu Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 307
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-13
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6988 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shardindu-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52319
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-suspension-Petitioner
was
appointed
as
an
L.T.
Grade
teacher
promoted to lecturer-he was exonerated by
the Joint Director of Education from charges
of irregular salary payments and procedural
lapses in admissions to the NCC-Despite this
, the DIOS refused to hand over the charge
of Officiating Principal-The court held that
suspension should be based on strong prima
facie evidence of serious misconduct-The
administrative decision of the DIOS was
found
to
be
illogical
and
arbitrarySuspension orders should not be issued
arbitrarily or with malice-The court held that
if an employee has been exonerated of
specific charges, issuing a suspension order
based on the same charges or without
sufficient legal grounds constitutes "malice
in law"-The administrative actions must be
fair reasonable, and supported by valid
reasons, as per the legal precedent in U.O.I.
Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Case.(Para 1 to
28)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Shardindu Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
307
hereby quashed being illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and
being violative of directions of Apex Court
issued in the case in re: Rafiq Masih
(supra).

13. The Competent Authorities, who
may be the Superintendent of Police,
District-Sitapur or the Finance Controller
of the Police Department, U.P., Lucknow,
are
directed
to
refund
a
sum
of
Rs.5,38,674/-, which has been deducted
from the amount of commutation of
pension,
to
the
petitioner
forthwith,
preferable within a period of one month
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order, failing which, the
petitioner would be entitled for interest on
delayed payment of such amount at the rate
of 10% per annum.

14. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition is allowed.

15. No order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 307
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No. 6988 of 2024

Shardindu Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gautam Baghel, Sri Om Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Adarsh Singh, C.S.C., Sri Indra Raj
Singh, Sri Jamil Ahamad Azmi
A. Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-suspension-Petitioner
was
appointed
as
an
L.T.
Grade
teacher
promoted to lecturer-he was exonerated by
the Joint Director of Education from charges
of irregular salary payments and procedural
lapses in admissions to the NCC-Despite this
, the DIOS refused to hand over the charge
of Officiating Principal-The court held that
suspension should be based on strong prima
facie evidence of serious misconduct-The
administrative decision of the DIOS was
found
to
be
illogical
and
arbitrarySuspension orders should not be issued
arbitrarily or with malice-The court held that
if an employee has been exonerated of
specific charges, issuing a suspension order
based on the same charges or without
sufficient legal grounds constitutes "malice
in law"-The administrative actions must be
fair reasonable, and supported by valid
reasons, as per the legal precedent in U.O.I.
Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Case.(Para 1 to
28)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I.& anr.. Vs Ashok kumar Aggarwal
(2013) 16 SCC 147

2. L.K. Verma Vs H.M.T.Ltd(2006) 2 SCC 269

3. Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & anr. Vs St.of Kar.
& ors.(2005) 10 SCALE 307

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gautam Baghel, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaya
Prasad Singh, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State-opposite
parties no.1 to 4, 7 and 8, Sri Indra Raj
Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.6.

2. The opposite party no.5 - Manoj
Kumar Mishra is the District Inspector of
Schools,
Azamgarh
who
has
been
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impleaded in his personal capacity as
allegations of malice have been levelled
against him.

3. By means of the instant writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner has
challenged the validity of an order dated
10.04.2024,
passed
by
the
District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, whereby
he has declined to hand over the charge of
Officiating Principal of S. K. P. Inter
College, Jokhara, Azamgarh (which will
hereinafter be referred to as 'the college')
to the petitioner till a decision in this regard
is taken by the Director of Education
(Secondary Education), U.P. The petitioner
has also challenged the validity of an order
dated 24.07.2024, passed by the opposite
party no.7 - Authorized Controller of the
college / District Inspector of Schools,
Azamgarh, whereby the petitioner has been
placed under suspension.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case
are that the petitioner was appointed as L.T.
Grade teacher in S. K. P Inter College,
Azamgarh in the year 1993 with the
approval of District Inspector of Schools,
Azamgarh. The petitioner's services were
regularized by means of an order dated
27.06.2001. The petitioner was promoted
on the aforesaid post of Lecturer (Zoology)
on ad-hoc basis by means of an order dated
26.07.1999,
passed
by
the
District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, which
was confirmed by the Joint Director of
Education by means of an order dated
27.09.2001. The senior most Lecturer who
was working as ad-hoc Principal of the
college resigned on 16.08.2022 and the
petitioner was made Officiating Principal
of the college and his signatures were
attested by the District Inspector of
Schools, Azamgarh 01.09.2022.

5. On 10.07.2023 the District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh issued a
circular
directing
all
the
Managers/Principals of aided intermediate
colleges to give updates of the pending writ
petitions filed by the employees of the
colleges. Upon issuance of the aforesaid
circular the petitioner verified the status of
the pending court cases, whereupon it came
to light that one Ram Sahai Maurya, a
Class-IV employee of the college, had filed
Writ-A No.25304 of 2001, in which this
court had passed an interim order dated
13.07.2001 directing payment of salary to
the petitioner, but the writ petition was
dismissed for want of prosecution on
20.04.2018. On 26.07.2023 the petitioner
issued a notice to the aforesaid employee
asking about the status of his pending case
and a similar notice was issued by the
Authorized Controller on 27.07.2023.

6. On 03.08.2023, the District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh issued a
show cause notice to the petitioner as to
why the aforesaid Class-IV employee was
paid salary after dismissal of his writ
petition and on 04.08.2023 the authorized
controller issued a similar notice to the
petitioner.

7. The petitioner submitted a reply to
the aforesaid notice stating that he got
knowledge of dismissal of the writ petition
only after holding an enquiry in pursuance
of the circular dated 10.07.2023 issued by
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Azamgarh. He further stated that he had
assumed the charge of the post of Principal
on 01.09.2022 only and he was never
informed about the dismissal of the writ
petition on 20.04.2018.

8. On 29.08.2023 the District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh passed an
8 All. Shardindu Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
309
order reverting the petitioner to the post of
Lecturer on the ground of payment of
salary to a Class-IV employee after
dismissal of the writ petition and also
certain irregularities committed in making
admissions to NCC, which ground was not
mentioned in the show cause notice.

9. The petitioner challenged the
aforesaid order by filing Writ-A No.15234 of
2023 which was disposed off by means of an
order dated 12.10.2023 granting liberty to the
petitioner
to
prefer
a
comprehensive
representation to the Joint Director of
Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh,
who would decide the same.

10. The Joint Director of Education has
decided the petitioner's representation by
means of an order dated 01.04.2024, whereby
the petitioner was exonerated of both the
charges and the District Inspector of Schools,
Azamgarh/Authorized Controller, S. K. P.
Intermediate College, Azamgarh was directed
to ensure further action in this regard. After
passing of the aforesaid order the petitioner
was reinstated in service.

11. On 10.04.2024, the District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh passed
another order stating that the matter of
promotion of the petitioner on the post of
Lecturer
(Zoology)
was
pending
consideration of Director of Education
(Secondary) and therefore he cannot be given
charge of the post of Principal. The petitioner
has filed this writ petition on 02.05.2024
challenging the validity of aforesaid order
dated 10.04.2024.

12. On 22.05.2024, this court had
passed the following order:

"1. The District Inspector of
Schools, Azamgarh will file his affidavit
within three days next clearly stating as to
who is the senior most Lecturer as on date
functioning with the SKP Intermediate
College, Azamgarh.

2.
The
position
about
the
seniority of Lecturers working with the said
Institution will be indicated as on date and
not on the basis of conjectures for the
future as to what may happen once the
Director of Education (Secondary), U.P.,
Prayagraj decides the issue of seniority.

3. Lay as fresh on 28.05.2024
along with a report regarding status of
pleadings.

4. By that time, respondent nos. 1,
2, 3 and 4 may file a counter affidavit on
whose
behalf
Mr.
Saurabh,
learned
Standing Counsel accepts notice.

5.
Let
this
order
be
communicated to the Director of Education
(Secondary), U.P., Prayagraj through the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad
and the District Inspector of Schools,
Azamgarh and the Joint Director of
Education (Secondary), Azamgarh Region,
Azamgarh through the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Azamgarh by the Registrar
(Compliance) within 72 hours."

13. The purport of the aforesaid order
was that the senior most Lecturer of the
college is entitled to give charge of the post
of Principal of the college.

14. After this Court had passed the
aforesaid order dated 22.05.2024, the
authorized controller has passed an order
dated 24.07.2024 placing the petitioner
under suspension and the petitioner has
challenged validity of this order also by
way of amendment in the Writ Petition.
After
placing
the
petitioner
under
suspension the opposite party no.6 has been
given charge of the post of Officiating
Principal of the College.
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The petitioner has challenged the
validity of the suspension order by making
amendments in the writ petition and it has
been submitted that the suspension order
has been passed maliciously to deprive the
petitioner of the benefit of the order dated
01.04.2024, passed by the Joint Director of
Education absolving the petitioner of the
charges levelled against him and directing
necessary consequences to follow.

16. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that in compliance
of the earlier order dated 12.10.2023,
passed by this Court in Writ A No.15234 of
2023, the Joint Director of Education has
already passed a detailed order dated
01.04.2024, whereby the petitioner has
been exonerated of the charge of making
wrongful payment of salary of a Class-IV
post employee after dismissal of his writ
petition for want of prosecution and also
for certain irregularities committed in
making admissions to NCC and he has
directed the District Inspector of Schools,
Azamgarh/Authorized Controller, S.K.P.
Intermediate College, Azamgarh to ensure
further action in furtherance of the
aforesaid decision of the Joint Director of
Education.

17. The basis of the statement made
by the District Inspector of Schools in his
letter dated 10.04.2024 that the matter of
the petitioner's promotion on the post of
Lecturer
(Zoology)
was
pending
consideration of Director of Education
(Secondary) and therefore he cannot be
given charge of the post of Principal, is a
report dated 16.12.2023 sent by the Joint
Director of Education, Azamgarh Division,
Azamgarh to the Director of Education
(Secondary), U.P., wherein the Joint
Director of Education has stated that the
petitioner was promoted from the post of
Assistant Teacher to the post of Lecturer on
ad-hoc basis on 26.07.1999 and he ought to
have first been regularized in L.T. Grade
and thereafter his seniority ought to have
been fixed and his promotion should have
been considered. The aforesaid letter
further states that the District Inspector of
Schools, Azamgarh had himself decided to
promote the petitioner on ad-hoc basis to
the post of Lecturer and the Regional Level
Committee had regularized his services on
27.06.2001 and thereafter he was promoted
to the post of Lecturer (Zoology) on
27.09.2001. Therefore, the promotion of
the petitioner to the post of Lecturer made
on 27.09.2001 was as per Rules. The Joint
Director stated that the Director of
Education may take an appropriate decision
in this regard. The Director of Education
has not taken any decision contrary to the
stand of the Joint Director that the
petitioner's promotion was made as per
Rules.

18. In these circumstances, the action
of the District Inspector of Schools,
Azamgarh in declining to hand over charge
of the post of Officiating Principal to the
petitioner on the pretext that the matter of
the petitioner's promotion to the post of
Lecturer
(Zoology)
is
pending
consideration
of
Director
Education
(Secondary), is apparently unreasonable
and unsustainable in law. When the Joint
Director of Education has recorded in the
aforesaid letter dated 16.12.2023 that the
promotion of the petitioner was made on
27.09.2001 as per Rules and the Director of
Education has not taken a decision contrary
to it, the District Inspector of Schools,
Azamgarh, who is subordinate to the Joint
Director, cannot take a decision contrary to
the aforesaid finding recorded by the Joint
Director of Education that the promotion of
the petitioner was made in accordance with
8 All. Shardindu Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
Rules and he cannot refuse to obey the
directions
of
the
Joint
Director
of
Education.

19. The subsequent suspension order
dated 24.07.2024 passed during pendency
of this petition on charges including the
charges from which the petitioner already
stands absolved by an order passed by the
Joint Director of Education, smacks of
malice against the petitioner as this order
would result in the petitioner being
deprived of benefit of the order dated
01.04.2024, passed by the Joint Director of
Education.

20. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and another Vs. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal: (2013) 16 SCC 147,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as follows: -

"21. The power of suspension
should not be exercised in an arbitrary
manner and without any reasonable
ground or as vindictive misuse of power.
Suspension should be made only in a case
where there is a strong prima facie case
against the delinquent employee and the
allegations involving moral turpitude,
grave misconduct or indiscipline or
refusal to carry out the orders of superior
authority are there, or there is a strong
prima facie case against him, if proved,
would ordinarily result in reduction in
rank, removal or dismissal from service.
The authority should also take into
account all the available material as to
whether in a given case, it is advisable to
allow the delinquent to continue to
perform his duties in the office or his
retention in office is likely to hamper or
frustrate the inquiry.

22. In view of the above, the law
on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that suspension order can be
passed
by
the
competent
authority
considering the gravity of the alleged
misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or
commission and the nature of evidence
available. It cannot be actuated by mala
fide,
arbitrariness,
or
for
ulterior
purpose. Effect on public interest due to
the employee's continuation in office is
also a relevant and determining factor.
The facts of each case have to be taken
into consideration as no formula of
universal application can be laid down in
this regard. However, suspension order
should be passed only where there is a
strong prima facie case against the
delinquent, and if the charges stand
proved,
would
ordinarily
warrant
imposition of major punishment i.e.
removal or dismissal from service, or
reduction in rank etc.

23. In Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai
Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel & Ors.,
(2006) 8 SCC 200, this Court explained:

"18. Having regard to it all, it is
manifest that the power of judicial review
may
not
be
exercised
unless
the
administrative decision is illogical or
suffers from procedural impropriety or it
shocks the conscience of the court in the
sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral
standards but no standardised formula,
universally applicable to all cases, can be
evolved. Each case has to be considered on
its own facts, depending upon the authority
that exercises the power, the source, the
nature or scope of power and the indelible
effects it generates in the operation of law
or affects the individual or society. Though
judicial restraint, albeit self-recognised, is
the order of the day, yet an administrative
decision or action which is based on wholly
irrelevant considerations or material; or
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
excludes from consideration the relevant
material; or it is so absurd that no
reasonable person could have arrived at it
on the given material, may be struck down.
In other words, when a court is satisfied
that there is an abuse or misuse of power,
and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is
incumbent on the court to intervene. It is
nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial
review is limited to the deficiency in the
decision-making process and not the
decision."

....

55. The aforesaid facts make it
crystal clear that it is a clear cut case of
legal malice. The aspect of the legal malice
was
considered
by
this
Court
in
Kalabharati
Advertising
v.
Hemant
Vimalnath Narichania & Ors., AIR 2010
SC 3745, observing:

"25. The State is under obligation
to act fairly without ill will or malice- in
fact or in law. "Legal malice" or "malice
in law" means something done without
lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully
and
wilfully
without
reasonable
or
probable cause, and not necessarily an act
done from ill feeling and spite. It is a
deliberate act in disregard to the rights of
others. Where malice is attributed to the
State, it can never be a case of personal ill
will or spite on the part of the State. It is an
act which is taken with an oblique or
indirect object. It means exercise of
statutory power for "purposes foreign to
those for which it is in law intended". It
means conscious violation of the law to
the prejudice of another, a depraved
inclination on the part of the authority to
disregard the rights of others, which intent
is manifested by its injurious acts.

26. Passing an order for an
unauthorised purpose constitutes malice
in law."

(Emphasis added)

21. Per contra, the learned counsel for
the opposite party no.6 has submitted that
besides the two charges of which the
petitioner has been absolved, eight other
charges have been levelled against him,
including the charge of misbehaviour with
superior officer and he has relied upon a
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of L. K. Verma Vs. H.M.T. Ltd.:
(2006) 2 SCC 269, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that verbal abuse can
be sufficient for inflicting punishment of
dismissal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
referred to an earlier decision in the case of
Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust and another
Vs. State of Karnataka and others:
(2005) 10 SCALE 307, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
indiscipline in an educational institution
should not be tolerated.

22. There can be no dispute to the
aforesaid proposition of law and this Court
has to examine the facts and circumstances
of the case in light of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
mentioned above so as to ascertain whether
the actions of the DI,O,S< suffer from legal
malice or whether the petitioner appears to
have committees a serious misconduct
warranting his suspension.

23. The petitioner was first imputed
with the allegation of making payment of
salary to Ram Sahai Maurya, a Class-IV
employee after dismissal of his writ
petition. Ram Sahai Maurya had filed WritA No.25304 of 2001, in which this court
had
passed
an
interim
order
dated
13.07.2001 directing payment of salary to
the petitioner. The writ petition was
dismissed for want of prosecution on
20.04.2018. The petitioner had taken
charge of the post of Principal on
01.09.2022. There is nothing on record that
8 All. Shardindu Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
the fact of dismissal of the Writ Petition
filed by Ram Sahai Maurya had been
brought to the knowledge of the petitioner
or any other authority and this fact came to
light only after the petitioner enquired into
the matter in compliance of the circular
dated 10.07.2023 issued by the District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh directing
all the Managers/Principals of aided
intermediate colleges to give updates of the
pending
writ
petitions
filed
by
the
employees of the colleges. There is no
allegation that the petitioner had paid salary
to Sri. Ram Sahay Maurya after the fact of
dismissal of his Writ Petition had come to
light.

24. Thereafter charge of the post of
Officiating Principal was taken away while
adding another charge of committing
irregularities in making admissions to NCC
and charge of the post of Officiating
Principal of the college was handed over to
the opposite party no. 6.

25. The Joint Director Education had
absolved the petitioner of both the
aforesaid charges by means of his order
dated 01.04.2024 and he had directed the
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Azamgarh/authorized controller to ensure
necessary action, but the District Inspector
of Schools, Azamgarh declined to hand
over the charge of the post of Officiating
Principal to the petitioner by misquoting a
report dated 16.12.2023 sent by the Joint
Director to the Director Education wherein
the Joint Director of Education has
categorically
stated
that
the
District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh had
himself decided to promote the petitioner
on ad-hoc basis to the post of Lecturer and
the
Regional
Level
Committee
had
regularized his services on 27.06.2001 and
thereafter he was promoted to the post of
Lecturer (Zoology) on 27.09.2001 and that
the promotion of the petitioner to the post
of Lecturer made on 27.09.2001 was as per
Rules. The Joint Director stated that the
Director of Education may take an
appropriate decision in this regard. The
Director of Education has not taken any
decision contrary to the stand of the Joint
Director that the petitioner's promotion was
made as per Rules. Therefore, the act of
District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh in
declined to hand over the charge of the post
of Officiating Principal to the petitioner
and instead handing over charge of the post
to the opposite party no. 6, is apparently
unreasonable and unsustainable in law.

26. Apparently, the D.I.O.S. has
passed
the
suspension
order
dated
24.07.2024 during pendency of this writ
petition to deprive the petitioner of the
benefit of order dated 01.04.2024, passed
by the Joint Director of Education and to
illegally permit the opposite party no.6 to
continue to hold the aforesaid post.

27. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
orders suffer from malice in law for which
there is no necessity of issuing notice to the
District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh in
his personal capacity when he has already
filed a counter affidavit sworn by himself.
The malice in law is different from malice
in fact, which allegation necessitates
opportunity of personal hearing to the
authority against whom malice in fact is
alleged.

28. In view of the foregoing
discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 10.04.2024, passed
by the District Inspector of Schools,
Azamgarh declining to hand over the
charge of the post of Officiating Principal
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the petitioner and the order dated
24.07.2024, passed by the authorized
controller of the college placing the
petitioner under suspension are hereby
quashed. All the opposite parties are
directed to ensure that the petitioner is
given charge of the post of Officiating
Principal of the college forthwith.

29. So far as the fresh charges
levelled
against
the
petitioner
are
concerned, the opposite parties will be at
liberty to hold an enquiry strictly in
accordance
with
law,
after
giving
adequate opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 314
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 7138 of 2020

Sushil Kumar Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Alok Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A)
Service
Law
-
U.P.
Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - Rule 7 (vii) & (viii) - The Civil
Service Regulations - Regulation 351-A -
Importance of natural justice and due
process - Right to Know Accusations - Fair
Chance
to
Respond
-
Oral
Inquiry
Required - Independent Inquiry Officer -
No Automatic Proof - Ex-Parte Inquiry -
Bona Fide Inquiry. (Para - 9)

(B)
Word
of
phrases
-
"sublato
fundamento cadit opus" - If the very
foundation of any structure goes, the
superstructure erected thereon would also
fall - If initial action is not in consonance
with
law,
all
subsequent
and
consequential
proceedings
would
fall
through for the reason that illegality
strikes at the root of the order - Once the
basis
of
a
proceeding
is
gone,
all
consequential acts, actions, orders would
fall to the ground automatically and this
principle is applicable to judicial, quasijudicial and administrative proceedings
equally - a right in law exists only and
only when it has a lawful origin. (para -
10,11)

Petitioner's challenge to validity of 3 specific
orders
-
Punishment
order
passed
by
Collector/District Magistrate - which reverted
petitioner to their initial/basic pay as a
Stenographer
without
following
prescribed
procedure under Rules, 1999 - no departmental
inquiry - no fixing date, time and place for oral
inquiry - Order passed by Appellate Authority -
Revisional order.(Para - 3,8,)

HELD: - Impugned punishment order set
aside/quashed because departmental inquiry
report was defective & inquiry process violated
natural justice principles so its consequential
orders i.e. appellate order and revisional order
stand automatically vitiated and are liable to be
declared non-est in view of the legal maxim
"sublato fundamento cadit opus". Opposite
parties must pass consequential orders, ignoring
the quashed punishment orders. Competent
authority may initiate new proceedings under
Regulation
351-A
of
the
Civil
Service
Regulations. (Para -10,12 to15)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Roop Narain Pandey Vs U.P. Cooperative
Institutional Service Board & ors., [2019 (37)
LCD 978]

2. Meenglas Tea Estate Vs The workmen, AIR
1963 SC 1719