# State of U.P. & Ors v. Shyam Kewal Ram

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1298
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-22
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 291 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-shyam-kewal-ram-51796
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary inquiry -
Punishment - Reversion - Enquiry Officer
exonerated the petitioner from charge no.
1, 2 & 3 due to its being not proved, but
the disciplinary authority disagreed and
imposed major punishment of reversion -
No
reasons
was
disclosed
by
the
disciplinary authority for disagreeing with
the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry
officer - Permissibility - Held, recording of
reasons in the show cause notice for
disagreeing with the opinion of inquiry
officer has a definite purpose to subserve.
It gives an opportunity to the delinquent
employee to offer his explanation on the
issues
that
have
weighed
with
the
disciplinary authority - The delinquent
employee was denied opportunity to
effectively put U.P. his defense in respect
of charge nos. 1, 2 and 3. (Para 5, 6 and 7)

Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nair v. Hibi Eden (Supra). Even in the
case of P.A. Mohammed Riyas (supra)
where the election petition was dismissed
for the defect in the affidavit, has been
overruled by the Supreme Court in the case
G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar,
(2013) 4 SCC 776 and accordingly is no
longer good law. The defect in the affidavit
is a curable defect, and therefore on the
basis of such a defect the election petition
cannot be dismissed. Accordingly, the
objections of the respondent no.1 in this
regard are rejected. The election petitioner
is granted two weeks' time to file a fresh
affidavit in accordance with law.

86. List this case on 02.05.2024.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1298
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Special Appeal No. 291 of 2024

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Shyam Kewal Ram ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C., Sri Tej Bhanu Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ganesh Shankar Dubey, Sri Upendra
Upadhyay

A. Service Law - Disciplinary inquiry -
Punishment - Reversion - Enquiry Officer
exonerated the petitioner from charge no.
1, 2 & 3 due to its being not proved, but
the disciplinary authority disagreed and
imposed major punishment of reversion -
No
reasons
was
disclosed
by
the
disciplinary authority for disagreeing with
the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry
officer - Permissibility - Held, recording of
reasons in the show cause notice for
disagreeing with the opinion of inquiry
officer has a definite purpose to subserve.
It gives an opportunity to the delinquent
employee to offer his explanation on the
issues
that
have
weighed
with
the
disciplinary authority - The delinquent
employee was denied opportunity to
effectively put U.P. his defense in respect
of charge nos. 1, 2 and 3. (Para 5, 6 and 7)

Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. P.N.B.Vs Kunj Behari Misra; 1998 (7) SCC 84

2. St. Bank of India & ors. Vs Mohammad
Badruddin; 2019 (16) SCC 69

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. This appeal arises out of the
judgment and order dated 13.3.2023 passed
by learned Single Judge allowing the writ
petition filed by the respondent-petitioner
against imposition of punishment vide
order dated 24.3.2008.

2. It transpires that disciplinary
inquiry was initiated against the writ
petitioner by the disciplinary authority with
service of charge-sheet dated 19.1.2006.
The inquiry officer ultimately submitted a
report in which he found charge nos.1,2
and 3 not to be proved. Charge no.4 was in
respect of the temporary embezzlement in
which the inquiry officer found the
petitioner to be guilty. It transpires that a
notice dated 12.11.2007 was issued by the
disciplinary authority who had disagreed
with the conclusion of the inquiry officer
with regard to exoneration of the writ
petitioner in respect of charge nos.1,2 and
4 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Shyam Kewal Ram
1299
3. Writ petitioner submitted a reply
to this notice whereafter the major
punishment of reversion to basic pay was
imposed by the disciplinary authority upon
the petitioner.

3. Learned Single Judge has found
the procedure for imposition of such
punishment to be unsustainable, inasmuch as
proper opportunity was denied to the writ
petitioner to defend himself. Thus aggrieved,
the State is before us challenging the
judgment of learned Single Judge.

4. We have heard learned State
counsel as well as Sri Upendra Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner
and have perused the materials on record.

5. The facts, as have been noticed
above, are not in issue. We have perused the
show cause notice dated 12.11.2007, issued
by the disciplinary authority, whereby he had
disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the
inquiry
officer
while
exonerating
the
delinquent employee of charge nos.1,2 and 3.
This notice only records the reasons for
which the inquiry officer had exonerated the
delinquent employee. Absolutely no reasons
have been disclosed by the disciplinary
authority for disagreeing with the conclusions
arrived at by the inquiry officer. It is,
therefore, urged on behalf of the writ
petitioner that in the absence of reasons
disclosed to the delinquent employee, by the
disciplinary authority, for disagreeing with
the opinion of the inquiry officer, the
delinquent
employee
was
denude
of
opportunity to explain the circumstances or
his defense in that regard.

6. Recording of reasons in the
show cause notice for disagreeing with the
opinion of inquiry officer has a definite
purpose to subserve. It gives an opportunity
to the delinquent employee to offer his
explanation on the issues that have weighed
with the disciplinary authority. In a case
where the disciplinary authority does not
record reasons for his disagreement with
the opinion of the inquiry officer the
delinquent employee will be denuded of his
right to effectively explain his defense
regarding reasons of disagreement. The law
in that regard has been settled by the
Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank vs.
Kunj Behari Misra 1998 (7) SCC 84,
wherein the Court has clearly observed that
reasons of disagreement must be disclosed
to the delinquent employee in order to
enable him to effectively meet the material
which is proposed to be relied upon against
him. Para 17 and 19 of the judgment are
relevant for the present purposes and are
reproduced hereinafter:-

"17........The principles of natural
justice would demand that the authority
which proposes to decide against the
delinquent officer must give him a hearing.
When the enquiring officer holds the
charges to be proved, then that report has
to be given to the delinquent officer who
can make a representation before the
disciplinary authority takes further action
which may be prejudicial to the delinquent
officer. When, like in the present case, the
enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent
officer but the disciplinary authority
proposes to differ with such conclusions,
then that authority which is deciding
against the delinquent officer must give him
an opportunity of being heard for otherwise
he would be condemned unheard. In
departmental proceedings, what is of
ultimate importance is the finding of the
disciplinary authority.
19........As
a
result
thereof,
whenever
the
disciplinary
authority
disagrees with the enquiry authority on any
1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
article of charge, then before it records its
own findings on such charge, it must record
its tentative reasons for such disagreement
and give to the delinquent officer an
opportunity to represent before it records
its findings. The report of the enquiry
officer containing its findings will have to
be conveyed and the delinquent officer will
have an opportunity to persuade the
disciplinary
authority
to
accept
the
favourable conclusion of the enquiry
officer. The principles of natural justice, as
we have already observed, require the
authority which has to take a final decision
and can impose a penalty, to give an
opportunity to the officer charged of
misconduct to file a representation before
the disciplinary authority records its
findings on the charges framed against the
officer."
The aforesaid point of law has been
reaffirmed by the Apex Court in State Bank
of India & Ors. vs. Mohammad Badruddin
(2019) 16 SCC 69.

7. In the facts of the present case,
we are inclined to concur with the view
taken by the learned Single Judge that in
fact reasons of disagreement were not
disclosed to the delinquent employee by the
disciplinary authority. In such view of the
matter, the delinquent employee was denied
opportunity to effectively put up his
defense in respect of charge nos.1,2 and 3.
So far as charge no.4 is concerned, the only
allegation found proved against the writ
petitioner was that he had belatedly
deposited the government money. The
disciplinary authority had already imposed
a minor punishment by the order under
challenge, inasmuch as adverse entry was
awarded to the employee concerned. It
transpires that major punishment has been
imposed upon the writ petitioner primarily
on account of his implication in other
charges which were impermissible, in view
of the discussions held above.

8. In such circumstances, the view
taken by the learned Single Judge to quash
the major punishment of reversion of basic
pay scale requires no interference. We are
also cognizant of the fact that the writ
petitioner had otherwise superannuated. In
that view of the matter, we are of the view
that no interference in the present appeal is
required which, consequently, fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ -A No. 2941 of 2020
With
Writ -A No. 8011 of 2020

Smt. Anusuiya Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bheem Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Sri Suresh
Kumar Maurya

A. Service Law - Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and
Full
Participation)
Act,
1995
-
Cancellation
of
Special
BTC
Training
Certificate
-
Charge
of
using
fake
disability certificate was leveled - The
petitioner met with a serious accident -
After examination by the Medical Board in
2006, CMO issued the Disability Certificate
declaring the petitioner 50% disable -
Petitioner was re-examined in 2018 after
litigation U.P.to the SU.P.reme Court, in