# State of U.P. & Ors v. Neeraj Verma

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 295
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-14
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 9541 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ved Prakash Vaish
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-neeraj-verma-47050
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

and Appeal) Rules (1999) - Rule 9
Sub-rule (2), (4) - Reasons to be
recorded - Compliance mandatory -
obligatory upon disciplinary authority
to record reasons at two different
stages - one, when it disagrees with
the findings of the inquiry officer
under sub-rule (2) and, secondly, when
it
decides
to
pass
an
order
of
punishment after considering the reply
given
by
the
delinquent
employee
under sub-rule (4) - Reasons, are
required
to
be
recorded
by
the
disciplinary authority as to why the
explanation given by the delinquent
employee is or is not satisfactory -
non-observance of Rule 9(4) is fatal
since
its
compliance
is
mandatory
(Para 13)

Enquiry officer (E.O.) exonerated charged
employee of all charges - Disciplinary
Authority (D.A.) disagreed with the report
of
enquiry
officer
-
however
without
recording/mentioning
any
reason
with
respect to the point on which D.A. not
agreed with findings of E.O. straightaway
issued
show
cause
notice
-
charged
employee
submitted
reply
-
without
considering
the
issue
raised
by
the
claimant/respondent in its reply to the show
cause notice, D.A. passed the order of
punishment
-
Held-
Punishment
order
against principle of natural justice - Order
of Tribunal in setting aside punishment,
proper (Para 14)

Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Neeraj Verma
295
----------
(2021)06ILR A295
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.

Service Bench No. 9541 of 2021

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Neeraj Verma ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
--

U.P. Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules (1999) - Rule 9
Sub-rule (2), (4) - Reasons to be
recorded - Compliance mandatory -
obligatory upon disciplinary authority
to record reasons at two different
stages - one, when it disagrees with
the findings of the inquiry officer
under sub-rule (2) and, secondly, when
it
decides
to
pass
an
order
of
punishment after considering the reply
given
by
the
delinquent
employee
under sub-rule (4) - Reasons, are
required
to
be
recorded
by
the
disciplinary authority as to why the
explanation given by the delinquent
employee is or is not satisfactory -
non-observance of Rule 9(4) is fatal
since
its
compliance
is
mandatory
(Para 13)

Enquiry officer (E.O.) exonerated charged
employee of all charges - Disciplinary
Authority (D.A.) disagreed with the report
of
enquiry
officer
-
however
without
recording/mentioning
any
reason
with
respect to the point on which D.A. not
agreed with findings of E.O. straightaway
issued
show
cause
notice
-
charged
employee
submitted
reply
-
without
considering
the
issue
raised
by
the
claimant/respondent in its reply to the show
cause notice, D.A. passed the order of
punishment
-
Held-
Punishment
order
against principle of natural justice - Order
of Tribunal in setting aside punishment,
proper (Para 14)

Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:

1. M.D. ECIL Vs B. Karunakaran AIR 1994
SC 1074

2. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Manmohan Nath
Sinha & anr. 2010 (8) SCC 310

3. Chairman, L.I.C. of India & ors. Vs A.
Masilamani : 2019 (6) SCC 530.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,
J.)

(1) The Court has convened
through Video Conferencing.

(2) Heard Shri Mohit Jauhari,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
State/petitioners.

(3) By means of the instant writ
petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is
challenging the judgment and order
dated 26.02.2019 passed by the State
Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"the
Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 253
of 2018 : Neeraj Verma Vs. State of
U.P. and others, whereby the Tribunal,
while allowing the claim petition,
quashed the order of punishment dated
30.11.2017 and directed that if any
service benefits are withheld on account
of
the
punishment
order
dated
30.11.2017, the claimant/respondent is
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entitled to get the same, in accordance
with law.

(4) Shorn off unnecessary details, the
brief facts of the case are that while the
claimant/respondent
was
working
as
District Excise Officer, Balrampur, a
departmental inquiry against him was
instituted under Rule 7 of the U.P.
Government
Servants
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 vide order dated
09.07.2015
on
the
ground
that
he
committed
various
irregularities
with
regard to the realization of basic license
fee, non-deposition of the Challan license
fees amounting to Rs.5,64,250/- till the date
of special audit, non-deposition of the
challan license fees of 56 shops of
countrymade liquor, 08 shops of foreign
liquor, 11 beer shops and non-deposition of
the security amount of 81 shops of
countrymade liquor, 14 shops of foreign
liquor, 06 beer shops. The Joint Excise
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur
Zone,
Gorakhpur was appointed as the enquiry
officer to conduct the departmental enquiry
in the matter of the claimant/respondent.

(5) A charge-sheet dated 03.07.2015
was served upon the claimant/respondent,
levelling eight charges against him. After
receipt
of
the
charge-sheet,
the
claimant/respondent had submitted his
reply dated 21.08.2015 to the Enquiry
Officer. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has
submitted his report dated 09.11.2015 to
the Disciplinary Authority, exonerating the
claimant/respondent from all the charges
but
the Disciplinary
Authority,
after
examining the enquiry report, disagreed
with the report of the enquiry officer and
after
finding
the
claimant/respondent
responsible for charges no. 6, 7 and 8,
issued
a
show
cause
notice
dated
26.04.2016 to the claimant/respondent. On
receipt of the show cause notice dated
26.04.2016,
the
claimant/
respondent
submitted his reply dated 11.05.2016,
stating therein that no loss of revenue was
caused to the Government instead all
efforts were made towards increasing the
revenue generated through liquor sale.
Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, vide
order dated 30.11.2017, concluded the
disciplinary
proceedings
by
awarding
punishment of stoppage of one increment
temporarily for a period of one year and
also
awarded
censure
entry
to
the
claimant/respondent.

(6)

Feeling
aggrieved
by
the
punishment order dated 30.11.2017, the
claimant/respondent has approached the
Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 253
of 2018. The Tribunal, after hearing the
learned Counsel for the parties and going
through the record, allowed the claim
petition vide order dated 26.12.2019, which
is impugned in the instant writ petition.

(7)

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners has argued that the Tribunal,
while passing the impugned order, has
failed to consider the most relevant fact that
there was an admission on the part of the
claimant/respondent with regard to the
delay in depositing the basic license fees
and the security amount of the shops and,
therefore, the charge levelled against him
vide charges no.6, 7 and 8 were proved on
the basis of available material evidences as
well as on the own admission of the
claimant/respondent and, therefore, the
disciplinary
authority
took
dissenting
opinion and has given show cause notice to
the claimant/respondent, to which the
claimant/respondent submitted his reply.
Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, after
due process of law, found that the charge
nos. 6, 7 and 8 stand proved and, therefore,
6 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Neeraj Verma
297
the punishment order has rightly been
passed against the claimant/respondent but
the Tribunal has erred in quashing the order
of punishment.

(8) It has been argued by the learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners
that
the
punishment order is well reasoned and
speaking and also contains the reasons for
coming to the conclusion for awarding the
punishment of stoppage of one increments
with temporary effect for one year. He also
argued that even if the Tribunal had noticed
certain infirmities that the version of the
respondent in his reply/explanation given in
reply to the show cause notice was not
discussed in the punishment order by the
disciplinary
authority,
it
could
have
remanded the matter to the disciplinary
authority for removing the defects as
observed by the Tribunal but the Tribunal has
erred in quashing the punishment order and
has also allowed the claim petition with all
the consequential benefits, which is in fact
without jurisdiction and also against the
principle of law laid down by the Apex Court
in M.D. ECIL Vs. B. Karunakaran : AIR
1994 SC 1074, State of U.P. and another
Vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha and another :
2010 (8) SCC 310 and Chairman, Life
Insurance Corporation of India and others
Vs. A. Masilamani : 2019 (6) SCC 530.

(9) We have heard learned Counsel for
the petitioner and gone through the impugned
order.

(10) It is not in dispute that the
disciplinary
proceedings
were
initiated
against the claimant/respondent under the
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to
as "1999 Rules") in which there is a complete
mechanism for conducting the disciplinary
proceeding.

(11) Rule 9 of 1999 Rules provides for
action on inquiry report and reads as under:

"9. Action on Inquiry Report.- (1) The
disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, remit the case for reinquiry to the same or any other Inquiry
Officer under intimation to the 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) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it
disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry
Officer on any charge, record its own
findings thereon for reasons to be recorded.

(3) In case the charges are not proved,
the charged Government servant shall be
exonerated by the disciplinary authority of
the charges and inform him accordingly.

(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 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 order imposing one or more
penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules
and communicate the same to the charged
Government servant."

(12) Sub-rule 2 of Rule 9 of the 1999
Rules
clearly
provides
that
if
the
disciplinary authority disagrees with the
findings of the Inquiry Officer on any
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charge, it shall record its own finding
thereto with the reasons. Sub-rule (4) of
Rule 9 of the 1999 Rules further requires
that if the disciplinary authority is of the
opinion that the Government servant
deserves imposition of some penalty under
Rule 3, he shall furnish a copy of the
inquiry report along with his findings
recorded, if any, under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 9
to the delinquent employee and would
allow him reasonable time to submit a
reply/representation. After receiving the
representation, the disciplinary authority
shall again consider the aforesaid material
along with the reply, if any, and pass a
reasoned order imposing one or more
penalty
mentioned
in
Rule
3
and
communicate the same to the delinquent
employee.

(13) From the aforesaid, it transpires
that when the rule framing authority itself
has made separate provision, making it
obligatory upon the disciplinary authority
to record reasons at two different stages,
one, when it disagrees with the findings of
the inquiry officer and, secondly, when it
decides to pass an order of punishment
after considering the reply given by the
delinquent employee against the findings of
disagreement of the disciplinary authority,
then it is obligatory upon the disciplinary
authority to follow such procedure strictly.
The reasons contained in the disagreement
note constitute the ex parte view taken by
the disciplinary authority against the
findings recorded by the inquiry officer.
When it is communicated to the delinquent
employee and he submits its reply, the
disciplinary authority is benefited with the
explanation
given
by
the
delinquent
employee. In order to find out as to whether
it would like to stick to its earlier view of
disagreement with the finding of the
inquiry officer or the same needs to be
changed, modified, partly or wholly in the
light of explanation given by the delinquent
employee, it has to apply its mind again.
The reasons, therefore, are required to be
recorded by the disciplinary authority as to
why
the
explanation
given
by
the
delinquent
employee
is
or
is
not
satisfactory. The purpose and objective of
reasons to be recorded under Sub-rule 2
and 4 of Rule 9 are different. They are to be
recorded at different stages with slightly
different material inasmuch as at the former
stage, the stand of the delinquent employee
is not available to the disciplinary authority
while in the later case it is available. We,
therefore, are clearly of the view that nonobservance of Rule 9(4) is fatal since its
compliance is mandatory. If the delinquent
employee
after
communicating
its
disagreement note and inquiry officer's
finding to the delinquent employee and
after receiving the reply failed to pass a
reasoned order imposing punishment upon
the delinquent employee, such order would
not be tenable in law and has to be set
aside.

(14) In the present case, a perusal of
the impugned order transpired that the
inquiry
officer
exonerated
the
claimant/respondent of all the charges.
However,
the
Disciplinary
Authority
disagreed with the findings particularly in
respect to charges No.6, 7 and 8, and
without recording/mentioning any reason
with respect to the point on which the
Disciplinary Authority has not agreed with
the
findings of
the
inquiry officer,
straightaway issued a show cause notice to
the claimant/ respondent, who, after receipt
of the show cause notice, submitted his
reply, but without considering the issue
raised by the claimant/respondent in its
reply to the show cause notice, the
Disciplinary Authority has passed the order
6 All. Pankaj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
299
of punishment, which has been challenged
by the claimant/respondent in Claim
Petition No. 253 of 2018. The Tribunal has
also found that so far as delayed payment
of the license fee is concerned, the Excise
Commissioner had fixed 15.04.2015 for
deposition of the license fee and prior to it,
the claimant/respondent has deposited the
license fee. The Tribunal has also opined
that the punishment order is against the
principle of natural justice. In these
backgrounds, vide impugned order, the
Tribunal allowed the claim petition and
quashed the order of punishment with a
direction that if any service benefits if
withheld on account of the punishment
order
dated
30.11.2017,
the
claimant/respondent is entitled to get the
same, in accordance with law.

(15) Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that there is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal.

(16) The writ petition lacks merit and
is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby
dismissed.

(17) Costs easy.

(18) The party shall file computer
generated copy of order downloaded from
the
official
website
of
High
Court
Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a
self attested identity proof of the said
person(s)
(preferably
Aadhar
Card)
mentioning the mobile number(s) to which
the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the
concerned Court/Authority/Official.

(19)

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of the computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)06ILR A299
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.06.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Service Single No. 24163 of 2019
Connected with
Service Single Nos. 3522 of 2018, 33850 of
2019, 14474 of 2018, 19124 of 2018, 22992 of
2018, 29564 of 2018, 5246 of 2019, 34847 of
2019, 31120 of 2019, 1227 of 2020, 2346 of
2020, 1930 of 2020, 2283 of 2020, 3920 of
2020, 5096 of 2020, 4809 of 2020, 8430 of
2019, 13450 of 2020, 19826 of 2020, 612 of
2021, 18174 of 2020, 5117 of 2018 & 24568 of
2019

Pankaj Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Laltaprasad Misra, Manoj Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra

A. Constitution of India - Art. 162, Art. 309
Proviso - U.P. Directorate of Treasuries
Ministerial Service Rules (1978) , Rule 4, 5
- Policy decision taken by the State in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
162
would
be
subservient
to
the
recruitment rules framed by the State
either in terms of a legislative act or the
proviso
appended
to
Article
309
-
Government
order(s)/administrative
order(s)/executive
order(s)/
executive
instruction cannot override, amend or
supersed the statutory rules framed under
the proviso to Article 309 - Any order,
instruction, direction or notification issued
in exercise of the executive power of the
State, which is contrary to any statutory