# Sri Kapil Kumar Sharma v. Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Dev. Authority, Meerut & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 205
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 15559 of 2019
- **Bench:** Yashwant Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-kapil-kumar-sharma-v-commissioner-chairman-meerut-dev-authority-meerut-anr-46733
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 19 (1) (a)
and (6) - Fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression - Right to make a
demonstration is covered by Article 19 (1)
(a) as it is in effect a form of speech or of
expression - Held, merely, because the
petitioner
had
taken
part
in
the
demonstration, he cannot be dealt with
under the Service Rules as petitioner has
fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a)
of the Constitution of India. (Para 18 and
19)
B. Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry -
Punishment - Charge of shouting slogan
and misbehavior - Non-supply of enquiry
report
-
No
opportunity
to
cross
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examination - No regular enquiry -
Punishment order without reason, merely
on the basis of summary enquiry - Validity
- Principle of natural justice - Application
- Held, unless a regular enquiry is
conducted
by
providing
reasonable
opportunity to the delinquent and unless
the alleged charge is proved in the
enquiry, no punishment can be imposed,
otherwise - It amounts to violation of
principles of natural justice. (Para 19, 21,
22 and 23)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

2 All. Sri Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Dev. Authority, Meerut & Anr.
205
superannuation. He had actually worked for
a period of five years without any dispute
as to age. The opposite parties had
conceded before the Supreme Court that
there would be no recovery of salary paid.
In these circumstances, the Court had
directed that no recovery of salary paid to
the appellant shall be made, as such, the
aforesaid judgment is of no help to
petitioner.

This extract is taken fromVinay
Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC
OnLine All 4171 : (2013) 3 All LJ 305 :
2013 Lab IC 1984 at page 309

30. In the case of Sushil Kumar
Pandey (2010 (5) ALJ 554) (supra), me
Division Bench while modifying the order
of learned single Judge wherein direction
was issued to terminate the service and
recovery of the amount paid as salary had
observed that the direction of learned single
Judge so far as it relates to termination of
service does not require interference.
However, since the petitioner has worked
for more than 10 years, it would be too
severe for the acts and omission on his part
as there is also omission and negligence on
the part of the authorities in granting
appointment to the appellant, as such, no
recovery of the amount paid as salary shall
be made. The Court has also observed that
even otherwise under Article 23 of the
Constitution the ''Begar' is prohibited. In
that case the recovery order was issued on
the basis of direction issued by the Court.
There was no dispute to the payment given
by the opposite parties. However, in the
present case it is the specific case of the
opposite parties that the petitioner has
obtained appointment and transfer from
Agra on the basis of forged documents and
he was not entitled to get salary. He had
worked during the period 20.7.2004 to
May, 2007 on the basis of forged
documents and, as such, the amount paid as
salary during the said period shall be
recovered."

19. Accordingly and for all the
aforesaid reasons the Court fails to find in
favour of the petitioner. The orders
impugned merit no interference.

20. The writ petition shall in
consequence stand dismissed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A205
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VERMA, J.

Writ A No. 15559 of 2019

Sri Kapil Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner/Chairman,
Meerut
Dev.
Authority, Meerut & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal

A. Constitution of India - Article 19 (1) (a)
and (6) - Fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression - Right to make a
demonstration is covered by Article 19 (1)
(a) as it is in effect a form of speech or of
expression - Held, merely, because the
petitioner
had
taken
part
in
the
demonstration, he cannot be dealt with
under the Service Rules as petitioner has
fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a)
of the Constitution of India. (Para 18 and
19)
B. Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry -
Punishment - Charge of shouting slogan
and misbehavior - Non-supply of enquiry
report
-
No
opportunity
to
cross
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examination - No regular enquiry -
Punishment order without reason, merely
on the basis of summary enquiry - Validity
- Principle of natural justice - Application
- Held, unless a regular enquiry is
conducted
by
providing
reasonable
opportunity to the delinquent and unless
the alleged charge is proved in the
enquiry, no punishment can be imposed,
otherwise - It amounts to violation of
principles of natural justice. (Para 19, 21,
22 and 23)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs St. of M.P.,
Gwalior, 2019 SCC Online MP 4664
2. O.K. Bhardwaj Vs U.O.I., (2001) 9 SCC 180
3. F.C.I. Vs A . Prahalada Rao, (2001) 1 SCC
165
4. St. of Bombay Vs Gajanaj Mahadev Badley,
AIR 1954 Bom 351
5. Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad Vs B
Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074
6. Salahuddin Ansari Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2008
(3) ESC 1667
7. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997
(1) LLJ 831
8. Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs Managing
Director & anr. , 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541
9. Kameshwar Prasad Vs St. of Bihar & anr.,
1962 (1) LLJ 294,
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. To assail correctness of the order
dated 18.07.2019 passed in appeal and
order dated 29.08.2019 passed in review
application
passed
by
Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Region
Meerut, Meerut Development Authority,
District Meerut-respondent no.1 and order
dated 23.06.2018 passed by Vice Chairman,
Meerut Development Authority, District
Meerut-respondent no.2 (Annexure Nos.22,
19 and 14 respectively), this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, has been preferred.

2. In a nut-sell, the case of the
petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk
in the office of Meerut Development
Authority in the year 1983. On 17.08.2018,
one Sri Baijnath posted as Additional
Secretary, Meerut Development Authority
lodged a complaint (Annexure No.1 to the
writ petition) in Police Station Meerut at
about 11.30 a.m. alleging that when the
officers of the authority were busy in
meeting, at that time, some of the members
of the Meerut Development Authority
Employees Union (hereinafter referred to
as the "Union") entered into the office and
started
shouting
slogan
and
also
misbehaved with the officers, as a result of
which, work was hampered about half an
hours. On the basis of said complaint, on
the same day, first information report was
lodged under Sections 342 and 353 of
I.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut
((Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) for
causing hindrance in government work. It
is alleged that in the said FIR, the petitioner
was not named. In pursuance of the said
FIR, the respondent no.2-Vice Chairman
Meerut
Development
Authority
on
19.06.2017 (Annexure No.3 to the writ
petition) passed an order by which the
petitioner was suspended on the ground
that in the said incident he was involved.
On 21.08.2017, the Enquiry Officer/Chief
Town
Planner,
Meerut
Development
Authority, Meerut sent a charge-sheet dated
19.08.2017 (Annexure No.4 to the writ
petition) with the charge that petitioner
without permission entered into the office
of Vice Chairman and started shouting
slogans and misbehaved with senior official
and also caused hindrance in official work,
2 All. Sri Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Dev. Authority, Meerut & Anr.
207
and as such, violates the rules provided
under U.P. Government Servants Conduct
Rules, 1956. Copy of charge-sheet was
served upon the petitioner on 21.08.2017
(Annexure No.5 to the writ petition). As a
consequence, the petitioner has filed his
reply
on
21.08.2017
before
Inquiry
Officer/Chief
Town
Planner,
Meerut
Development
Authority,
Meerut.
The
Inquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry
Report on 23.09.2017 (Annexure No.6 to
the writ petition) in which no credible
evidence was found against the petitioner.
Thereafter, the Vice Chairman rejected the
Enquiry Report on 28.09.2017 (Annexure
No.7 to the writ petition) with the direction
to the Inquiry Officer to issue a fresh
charge
sheet
alongwith
evidence.
Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer issued
amended charge sheet on 17.10.2017
containing two charges (Annexure No.8 to
the writ petition). Against the amended
charge sheet, on the same day i.e. on
17.10.2017, the petitioner has filed his
reply (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition).
Upon reply submitted by the petitioner, the
Vice
Chairman,
Meerut
Development
Authority
passed
the
order
dated
06.01.2018 (Annexure No.10 to the writ
petition) by which the suspension order
dated 19.06.2017 was revoked with the
direction the the departmental enquiry will
continue.

3. It is further alleged that when
suspension order was revoked, the Inquiry
Officer again submitted amended Enquiry
Report dated 28.09.2017 (Annexure No.12
to the writ petition) holding that since the
suspension order has been revoked, as
such, Inquiry Officer drawn conclusion that
since no criminal case was lodged against
the petitioner, he is guilty only for minor
misconduct. The Enquiry Officer/Chief
Town
Planner,
Meerut
Development
Authority submitted his enquiry report
before the Vice Chairman on 20.06.2019
(Annexure No.13 to the writ petition)
stating that suspension of the petitioner was
revoked by order dated 28.09.2017 since no
criminal case was lodged against the
petitioner. Neither he misbehaved with the
officer nor he shouted slogan and also he
did not use any foul language as such he is
guilty for minor misconduct. The Vice
Chairman
passed
the
order
dated
23.06.2018 holding guilty of misconduct as
provided under U.P. Government Servants
and punished the petitioner as under:

i. Suspension period wages and
allowances will not be payable.

ii. Adverse entry in service record
is to be made.

iii. If in future petitioner repeats
the same he will be terminated ex-parte.

iv. The petitioner will not be
posted on important work/table.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated
23.06.2018 passed by Vice Chairman,
Meerut
Development
Authority,
the
petitioner
preferred
an
appeal
on
20.09.2018 (Annexure No.15 to the writ
petition) before Commissioner/President,
Meerut
Region/Meerut
Development
Authority with the prayer that his case may
be considered sympathetically and order
dated 23.06.2018, by which punishment
has been awarded, may be recalled. The
appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide
order dated 18.07.2019.

5. On 19.07.2019, the petitioner has
filed an application before the appellate
authority stating that final report has been
filed in Criminal Case No.252 of 2017 and
by order dated 12.04.2019, the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Meerut held that
according to final report, no evidence was
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
found, as such, final report is accepted and
Criminal Case No.250 of 2017 lodged in
Thana Civil Lines, Meerut is consigned to
record. The petitioner on the basis of order
dated
12.04.2019
prayed
that
the
punishment given by Vice Chairman,
Meerut Development Authority Meerut
may be recalled. However, it is stated that
the application filed by the petitioner was
rejected on the ground that appeal has
already been decided. Feeling aggrieved,
the petitioner filed review application
before Commissioner/President, Meerut
Region/ Meerut (Annexure No.20 to the
writ petition). During pendency of review
application, the petitioner filed Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.13096 of 2019 before this
Court
for
early
disposal
of
review
application, which was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 11.09.2019.

6. The petitioner received copy of
order dated 29.08.2019 sent by Office of
Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut that
his review application has been rejected by
order dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure No.22 to
the writ petition).

7. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that since the petitioner
was not named in the FIR, the appellate
authority without considering the grounds
of appeal, dismissed the appeal vide order
dated 18.07.2017 as well as without
considering the enquiry report filed by
Inquiry Officer in which petitioner was
exonerated from all the charges. Further
submission is that while deciding the
review
application,
the
contesting
respondent failed to consider that petitioner
produced
evidence
alongwith
review
application the order dated 12.04.2019
passed
by
Special
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Meerut, which is illegal and
arbitrary. Further submission is that Inquiry
Officer submitted the enquiry report before
the disciplinary authority and it was the
duty of the disciplinary authority to supply
a copy of enquiry report to the petitioner
and non-supply of enquiry report to
petitioner to make representation against it,
amounts to violation of principle of natural
justice. Submission further is that it was
mandatory on the part of disciplinary
authority before passing the punishment
order, a reasonable opportunity should have
been granted to the petitioner. The
impugned order is in violation of Article
311 of the Constitution of India, and as
such, the same is not sustainable. Before
passing the impugned punishment order, no
ground has been given by contesting
respondent, as such, the impugned order is
cryptic and liable to be set aside. The
enquiry itself was defective as charge sheet
given to the petitioner, the petitioner was
required to submit his reply within 15 days.
Neither date was fixed for enqiury nor any
date was fixed in amended charge sheet as
such the impugned order is wholly illegal
and liable to be set aside. Holding of oral
enquiry is mandatory before imposing
penalty,
but
no
such
enquiry
was
conducted.
The
entire
disciplinary
proceeding against the petitioner is in utter
violation of principle of natural justice.

8. In support of his submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment in the case of Rajendra
Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P., Gwalior,
2019 SCC Online MP 4664.

9. Countering the above said
submissions, on the other hand, Sri
Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the
Meerut
Development
Authority
has
vehemently opposed the writ petition and
submitted that it is admitted by the
petitioner that he was part of the agitated
2 All. Sri Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Dev. Authority, Meerut & Anr.
209
group, who forced illegal entry in the
chamber of Vice Chairman, when a
meeting was going on. The agitated group
also shouted slogans and the office bearers
of the employee's association also while
pressing
their
demands,
used
unparliamentarily language, which was not
denied and the same is also proved by the
footage of the CCTV and Videography,
which has been produced before the
Enquiry Officer. Further submission is that
the amended charge sheet was served upon
the petitioner and it is further stated that
conduct of the petitioner was against the
Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.
However, no proceeding for enquiring into
the charge sheet was directed to continue
and the same has been directed to drop and
only departmental enquiry was directed to
be continued. Further submission is that
sufficient opportunity was given to the
petitioner to represent his case and the
petitioner also filed several representations,
appeal as well as review in which the
petitioner has admitted his presence with
the agitated group.

10. In paragraph 9 of the counter
affidavit, it is stated that the appellate
authority of punishment, the Commissioner,
Meerut Division, Meerut and Chairman,
Meerut
Development
Authority
after
considering the entire evidence, rejected the
appeal of the petitioner as petitioner was
found guilty of minor misconduct of
accompanying
the
agitated
group
of
employee, who illegally entered into the
chamber of Vice Chairman while he was in
the meeting and used unparliamentarily
language
for
pressing
their
demands,
therefore, the punishment imposed against
the petitioner is found to be justified.

11. I have heard Sri Alok Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned
counsel for the Meerut Development
Authority
and
perused
the
material
available on record.

12. Now the only question for
consideration is that whether the matter
should
be
remanded
back
to
the
respondent-authority for holding a proper
departmental enquiry or not?

13. At this stage, it would be
appropriate to notice some authorities in
point rendered by this Court in O.K.
Bhardwaj vs. Union of India (2001) 9
SCC 180 and Food Corporation of India
vs. A . Prahalada Rao (2001) 1 SCC 165,
the court held as under:

"16. The position as can be
gathered from the Rules and the aforesaid
decisions can be summarised thus:

(i) In a summary inquiry, a show
cause notice is issued informing the
employee about the proposal to take
disciplinary action against him and of the
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour
on which such action is proposed to be
taken.
The
employee
is
given
an
opportunity of making a representation
against the proposal. The Disciplinary
Authority considers the records and the
representation and records of findings on
each of the imputations of misconduct.

(ii) In a regular inquiry, the
Disciplinary Authority
draws
up
the
articles of charge and it is served on the
employee with a statement of imputation of
misconduct, list of witnesses and list of
documents relied on by the Department.
The Disciplinary Authority calls upon the
employee to submit his defence in writing.
On
considering
the
defence;
the
Disciplinary Authority considers the same
and decides whether the inquiry should be
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceeded with, or the charges are to be
dropped. If he decides to proceed with the
enquiry, normally an Inquiring Authority is
appointed unless he decides to hold the
inquiry himself. A Presenting Officer is
appointed to present the case. The employee
is permitted to take the assistance of a coemployee or others as provided in the rules.
An inquiry is held where the evidence is
recorded in the presence of the employee. The
employee is permitted to inspect the
documents relied upon by the employer. The
employee is also permitted to call for other
documents
in
the
possession
of
the
Management which are in his favour. The
delinquent employee is given an opportunity
to rebut the evidence of the management by
cross-examining the management witnesses
and by producing his evidence both
documentary and oral. Arguments written
and/or
oral-are
received/heard.
The
delinquent employee is given full opportunity
to put forth his case. Therefore, the Inquiring
Authority submits his report. The copy of the
report is furnished to the employee and his
representation is received. Thereafter the
Disciplinary Authority considers all the
material and passes appropriate orders. The
detailed procedure for such inquiries is
contained in sub-rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9 of
the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules, 1968 corresponding to sub-rules (3) to
(23) of Rule 14 of the Central' Civil Services
(CCA) Rules, 1965 and M.R Civil Services
(CCA) Rules, 1966.

(iii) The normal rule, except
where the employee admits guilt, is to hold
a regular inquiry. But where the penalty
proposed is a 'minor penalty', then the
Rules give the Disciplinary Authority a
discretion to dispense with a regular
inquiry for reasons to be recorded by him,
and hold only a summary enquiry.

(iv)
Though
the
Rules
contemplate imposing a minor penalty
without holding a regular enquiry, where
the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion
that such enquiry is not necessary, such
decision not to hold an enquiry can be only
for valid reasons, recorded in writing.
Dispensation with a regular enquiry where
minor penalty is proposed, should be in
cases which do not in the very nature of
things require an enquiry, for example, (a)
cases of unauthorised absence where
absence is admitted but some explanation
is
given
for
the
absence;(b)
noncompliance with or breach of lawful orders
of official superiors where such breach is
admitted but it is contended that it is not
wilful breach; (c) where the nature of
charge is so simple that it can easily be
inferred from undisputed or admitted
documents; or (d) where it is not
practicable to hold a regular enquiry.

(v) But, even where the penalty
proposed is categorized as minor penalty, if
the penalty involves withholding increments
of pay which is likely to affect adversely the
amount of pension (or special contribution
to provident fund payable to the employee),
or withholding increments of pay for a
period exceeding three year or withholding
increments of pay with cumulative effect for
any period, then it is incumbent upon the
disciplinary authority to hold a regular
inquiry.

(vi) Position before decision in
FCI: Where the charges are factual and the
charges are denied by the employee or
when the employee requests for an inquiry
or an opportunity to put forth the case, the
discretion of the Disciplinary Authority is
virtually taken away and it is imperative to
hold a regular inquiry.

After decision in FCI: Where the
Rules give a discretion to the Disciplinary
Authority to either hold a summary enquiry
or regular enquiry, it is not possible to say
that the Disciplinary Authority should
2 All. Sri Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Dev. Authority, Meerut & Anr.
211
direct only a regular enquiry, when an
employee denies the charge or requests for
an inquiry. Even in such cases, the
Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to
decide, for reasons to be recorded, whether
a regular enquiry should be held or not. If
he decides not to hold a regular enquiry
and
proceeds
to
decide
the
matter
summarily, the employee can always
challenge the minor punishment imposed,
on the ground that the decision not to hold
a regular enquiry was an arbitrary
decision. In that event, the Court or
Tribunal will in exercise of power of
judicial review, examine whether the
decision of the Disciplinary Authority not
to hold an enquiry was arbitrary. If the
Court/Tribunal holds that the decision was
arbitrary, then such decision not to hold an
enquiry and the consequential imposition of
punishment will be quashed.
If the
Court/Tribunal holds that the decision was
not arbitrary, then the imposition of minor
penalty will stand. 17. It is also possible to
read the decisions in Bharadwaj and FCI
harmoniously, if Bharadwaj is read as
stating
a
general
principle,
without
reference to any specific rules, that it is
incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority
to hold a regular enquiry, even for
imposing a minor penalty, if the charge is
factual and the charge is denied by the
employee. On the other hand, the decision
in FCI holding that the Disciplinary
Authority has the discretion to dispense
with a regular enquiry, even where the
charge is factual and the employee denies
the charge, is with reference to the specific
provisions
of
a
Rule
vesting
such
discretion."

14. So far as opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner is concerned, in the case of
State of Bombay vs. Gajanaj Mahadev
Badley, AIR 1954 Bom 351, the Court
observed that public servant must have an
opportunity to show cause not only against
the punishment but also against the grounds
on which the State proposes to punish him.
The grounds on which the State proposes to
act must be communicated to the public
servant.

15. In Managing Director ECIL
Hyderabad vs. B Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC
1074, the Court held that it has to be held
that when the Inquiry Officer is not the
disciplinary
authority,
the
delinquent
employee has right to receive a copy of the
inquiry
officer's
report
before
the
disciplinary
authority
arrives
at
its
conclusion with regard to the guilt or
innocence of the employee with regard to
the charges levelled against him. That right
is a part of the employee's right to defend
himself against the charges levelled against
him. A denial of Inquiry Officer's report
before the disciplinary authority takes its
decision on the charges is a denial of
reasonable opportunity to the employee to
prove his innocence and is a breach of the
principles of natural justice.

16. So far as holding of oral enquiry,
which is mandatory before imposing
penalty is concerned, in the case of
Salahuddin Ansari vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2008 (3) ESC 1667, the Court has
clearly held that non-holding of oral
inquiry is a serious flaw which vitiates the
entire disciplinary proceeding including the
order of punishment. Non holding of oral
inquiry in such a case is a serious matter
and goes to the root of the case.

17. The Apex Court in State of U.P.
and another vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997
(1) LLJ 831 as well as in Subhash
Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director
and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541, it is
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clearly held that holding of oral enqiury is
mandatory
before
imposing
a
major
penalty.

18. In Kameshwar Prasad vs. State of
Bihar and another, 1962 (1) LLJ 294, the
Court held that no government servant shall
participate in any demonstration or resort to
any form of strike in connection with any
matter pertaining to his conditions of
service, was held to be violative of Article
19 of the Constitution of India as infringing
the protection guaranteed by Article 19 (1)
(a) and (6) of the Constitution. The Court
specifically held that right to make a
demonstration is covered by Article 19 (1)
(a) (b) as it is in effect a form of speech or
of expression. It was also recognized that
demonstration may take various forms and
that a peaceful and ordinary demonstration
to draw attention to their grievance would
fall within the freedom guaranteed under
these clauses.

19. Bare perusal of record shows that
no reason has been given by contesting
respondents before passing the impugned
punishment order. Neither evidence was led
in presence of the petitioner nor he was
given opportunity to cross examine the
witnesses against him or lead his own
evidence and, as such, the impugned
punishment order is excessive and illegal.
Merely, because the petitioner had taken
part in the demonstration, he cannot be
dealt with under the Service Rules as
petitioner has fundamental right under
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of
India.

20. It is admitted fact that petitioner's
suspension order was revoked, thereafter,
the
Inquiry
Officer
again
submitted
amended Enquiry Report dated 28.09.2017
holding that since the suspension order has
been revoked, as such, Inquiry Officer
drawn conclusion that since no criminal
case was lodged against the petitioner, he is
guilty
only
for
minor
misconduct,
thereafter, the Enquiry Officer/Chief Town
Planner, Meerut Development Authority
submitted his Enquiry Report before the
Vice Chairman on 20.06.2019 stating that
there is no criminal case lodged against the
petitioner. Neither he misbehaved with the
officer nor he shouted slogan and also he
did not use any foul language, as such, he is
guilty for minor misconduct, but instead of
minor punishment, authority concerned
passed the impugned order against the
petitioner, which would so affect in future
service of the petitioner.

21. True, it is that before passing the
impugned
punishment
order,
no
opportunity was accorded to the petitioner
to represent himself as it was mandatory on
the part of the disciplinary authority. From
perusal of record, it transpires that enquiry
itself was defective as no independent
witness was named in the charge-sheet nor
produced during the inquiry proceeding.
The Inquiry Officer submitted the enquiry
report before the disciplinary authority and
it was the duty of the disciplinary authority
to supply the copy of enquiry report to the
petitioner and non-supply of enquiry report
to the petitioner to make representation
against
it,
amounts
to
violation
of
principles of natural justice. It is clear that
wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer
and he has furnished a report to the
disciplinary authority at the conclusion of
the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of
all or any of the charges with proposal for
any particular punishment or not, the
delinquent is entitled to a copy of such
report and will also be entitled to make a
representation against it, if he so desires,
and non-furnishing of the report would
2 All. Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Prayagwati Devi Agrawal & Ors.
213
amount to violation of rules of natural
justice.

22. Admittedly, no regular enquiry was
conducted against the petitioner and only on
the basis of summary enquiry, the respondentauthority has passed the impugned order.

23. It is settled proposition of law that
unless a regular enquiry is conducted by
providing reasonable opportunity to the
delinquent and unless the alleged charge is
proved in the enquiry, no punishment can be
imposed, otherwise. it amounts to violation of
principles of natural justice.

24. In view of aforesaid observations, the
writ petition succeeds and the same is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
18.07.2019 passed in appeal is hereby set
aside.

25. The matter is remanded back to the
disciplinary authority to proceed from the
stage prior to the passing of the impugned
order and conclude the regular enquiry within
a period of six months from the date of
production of copy of this order.

26. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A213
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ A (Rent Control) No. 9686 of 2020

Om Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Prayagwati Devi Agrawal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nikhil Mishra, Sri Manish Goyal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kshitij Shailendra

A.
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Eviction
suit - Relationship of landlord and tenant
- Ownership - Relevancy - Capacity of
plaintiff as the landlord admitted - Effect
- Ownership of a person is immaterial for
the purpose of the Act - Held, although
the landlord has placed evidence of his
ownership on record and has been upheld
by both the courts below and there is a
concurrent finding on record in this
regard, however, I have discussed the
abovenoted law for the reason that the
case of the petitioner holds no ground that
the plaintiff, who had filed the suit is not
the landlord and therefore, the release
application was not maintainable - No
jurisdictional error or perversity in the
findings recorded and the conclusion
drawn by the courts below. (Para 14, 16
and 20)
B.
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Eviction -
Bona fide need - Younger son of landlord
is in some private job, no independent
business of his own - Held, need to settle
younger son in a business on a shop in
dispute is genuine and bonafide. (Para 18)
C.
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Eviction -
Comparative hardhip - No effort to search
alternative accommodation by tenant -
Effect - Held, it is not in dispute that no
effort was made by the tenant to search
any
other
alternative
accommodation
during pendency of the litigation, it cannot
be
said
that
the
tenant
has
any
comparative hardship - Court, below,
correctly decided the issue. (Para 18)