# State of U.P. & Ors v. State Public Service Tribunal, Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1060
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-25
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 3786 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-state-public-service-tribunal-lko-ors-48400
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings
-
Oral
Inquiry
-
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - It has
been
consistently
held
that
a
departmental
inquiry
against
government servant is not to be treated
as a casual exercise and the principles of
natural
justice
are
required
to
be
observed so as to ensure not only that
justice is done but is manifestly seen to
be done; the object being to ensure that the
delinquent is treated fairly in proceedings
which may culminate in imposition of a major
penalty against him. (Para 14)

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 charge-sheeted 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. (Para
9)

In the present case, as the inquiry officer
failed to fix any date, place or time in the
conduct of inquiry and the absence of any
witness having been examined to support
the
charges
levelled
against
the
respondent-employee
has
led
to
a
situation where the delinquent has been
condemned unheard. The entire proceedings,
being a violation of principles of natural justice
and total disregard of procedural fairness, have
rightly been held by the Tribunal to be vitiated.
(Para 17)
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. State Public Service Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
1061
B. 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. 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.
(Para 10)

In the present case, the contention of the
petitioner that once the charges stand proved,
there is no need of any formal oral inquiry or
cross-examination of the witnesses, cannot be
held to be sustainable for the reason that the
same would amount to gross denial of a fair
opportunity to the delinquent to place his
defence and would amount to by-passing the
procedure under the Rules, 1999, apart from
being violative of the principles of natural
justice. (Para 18)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
versus State of U.P.1; Smt. Sushila Devi
versus State of U.P.2)

11. In the case at hand, it is not in
dispute that the deceased police official
was duly deputed on a rescue mission duly
recorded in the G.D. and as per the enquiry
report. The deceased employee complied
with directions and successfully rescued the
trapped victims. In the course of complying
the second leg of the direction that the
victims are to be transported to the Trauma
Centre, the deceased employee succumbed
to the injury caused due to electric shock at
the
barrack.
The
death,
in
the
circumstances occurred while the official
was on duty complying the official orders.
Petitioner is entitled to extraordinary
pension being covered under Rule 3 of
Rules, 1975.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
27.03.2015, passed by the first respondent,
Principal Secretary Home Department,
Government of U.P., Lucknow, is set aside
and quashed. State-respondents are directed
to compute and grant extraordinary pension
to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.09.2012, within
two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall
be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the due amount from the due
date till the payment is received.
----------

(2022)05ILR A1060
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.
Writ A No. 3786 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Public Service Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Shukla (S.C.)

A.
Service
Law
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings
-
Oral
Inquiry
-
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - It has
been
consistently
held
that
a
departmental
inquiry
against
government servant is not to be treated
as a casual exercise and the principles of
natural
justice
are
required
to
be
observed so as to ensure not only that
justice is done but is manifestly seen to
be done; the object being to ensure that the
delinquent is treated fairly in proceedings
which may culminate in imposition of a major
penalty against him. (Para 14)

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 charge-sheeted 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. (Para
9)

In the present case, as the inquiry officer
failed to fix any date, place or time in the
conduct of inquiry and the absence of any
witness having been examined to support
the
charges
levelled
against
the
respondent-employee
has
led
to
a
situation where the delinquent has been
condemned unheard. The entire proceedings,
being a violation of principles of natural justice
and total disregard of procedural fairness, have
rightly been held by the Tribunal to be vitiated.
(Para 17)
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. State Public Service Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
1061
B. 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. 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.
(Para 10)

In the present case, the contention of the
petitioner that once the charges stand proved,
there is no need of any formal oral inquiry or
cross-examination of the witnesses, cannot be
held to be sustainable for the reason that the
same would amount to gross denial of a fair
opportunity to the delinquent to place his
defence and would amount to by-passing the
procedure under the Rules, 1999, apart from
being violative of the principles of natural
justice. (Para 18)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Radhey Kant Khare Vs U.P. Cooperative
Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003 (1) AWC
704 All (Para 9)

2. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha,
(2010) 2 SCC 772 (Para 10)

Present petition challenges the order
dated 09.09.2021, passed by U.P. State
Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.N.Shukla, learned
Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
appearing for the petitioners.

2. The present petition seeks to raise a
challenge to an order dated 09.09.2021
passed by the U.P. State Public Services
Tribunal, Lucknow1 in terms of which
Claim Petition No. 444 of 2008 (Krishna
Kumar Tevatia and others Vs. State of U.P.
and
others)
filed
by
the
deceased
respondent no. 2 has been allowed and the
order of punishment dated 30.04.2005, the
appellate order dated 24.12.2005 and the
revisional order dated 18.10.2007, have
been set aside and benefits withheld due to
the said punishment order have been
directed to be refunded to the legal
representatives of the deceased respondent
no. 2.

3. The facts of the case as reflected
from the pleadings are that disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the
respondent no. 2 while he was posted as
Collection Amin at Jahanabad, District
Pilibhit
and
a
charge-sheet
dated
30.09.2004 was issued whereupon an
inquiry was conducted and a report was
submitted on 20.01.2005 holding the
respondent no. 2 guilty of the charges. A
show cause notice was issued to him on
05.02.2005 to which he submitted a reply
on 28.02.2005 and thereafter the order of
punishment was passed on 30.04.2005
whereby the respondent no. 2 was reverted
to his original pay scale in addition to
award of adverse entry in his character role.
The appeal and revision filed thereagainst
were
dismissed
on
24.12.2005
and
18.10.2007 respectively.

4.

The
Tribunal
taking
into
consideration the inquiry report came to a
conclusion that neither any date, time or
place was fixed by the inquiry officer nor
any oral evidence was led and only on the
basis of some documentary evidence, the
respondent no. 2 was held guilty of the
charges. It was also held that the
respondent no. 2 was not afforded any
opportunity to adduce evidence and was
denied reasonable opportunity of defence.
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Referring to Rule 7 of the U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
19992 and also certain legal authorities for
the proposition that even in a case where
the delinquent employee does not submit
any reply to the charge-sheet, the inquiry
officer is not absolved from his duty to
record oral evidence and provide an
opportunity to adduce evidence in defence,
the inquiry was held to be vitiated. It was
also held that the disciplinary authority has
proceeded only on the basis of the inquiry
report
and
therefore
the
order
of
punishment being in violation of the
principles of natural justice was not
sustainable and was accordingly quashed
and the claim petition was allowed. Taking
notice of the fact that the respondent no. 2
had expired during the pendency of the
claim petition, the Tribunal held that no
fruitful purpose would be served in
remitting the matter for fresh inquiry and in
view thereof while setting aside the orders
of punishment, the appellate order and the
revisional order, the benefits withheld due
to the punishment order have been directed
to be refunded to the legal representatives
of the respondent no. 2.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has sought to urge that once the
charges stood proved there was no need for
any
formal
oral
inquiry
or
crossexamination of the witnesses and for the
said reason the order passed by the
Tribunal is manifestly erroneous and
legally unsustainable. It is also sought to be
contended that the order passed by the
Tribunal does not give any cogent reason to
set aside the order of punishment and also
the orders passed in appeal and revision.

6. The procedure with regard to
holding of disciplinary proceedings against
government servants in State of U.P. is
governed as per the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal), Rules 1999. The procedure
for imposing major penalties, the manner in
which charge-sheet is required to be given,
the holding of an enquiry by the inquiry
officer designated for the purpose the grant
of opportunity to call witnesses and record
their oral evidence are also provided for
under the said Rules.

7. The report of the inquiry officer, as
has been noticed in the order passed by the
Tribunal, shows that neither any date, time
and place was fixed by the inquiry officer
nor any oral evidence was led to prove the
charges. It also records that only on the
basis of the certain documentary evidence
the employee was held guilty of the charges
and therefore it was a case of denial of
reasonable opportunity to him to place his
defence. The Tribunal has referred to Rule
7 of the Rules, 1999 and also the legal
position that even in a situation where the
delinquent employee does not submit any
reply to the charge-sheet, the inquiry
officer is not absolved from his duty to
record oral evidence and to provide an
opportunity to him to adduce evidence in
his defence.

8. The legal position with regard to
grant of reasonable opportunity to a
delinquent employee to place his defence
during the course of a departmental inquiry
and the necessity of observance of
principles of natural justice and following
the due procedure is fairly well setted.

9. A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Radhey Kant Khare vs. U.P.
Cooperative
Sugar
Factories
Federation Ltd.3, has held that after a
charge sheet is given to the employee, an
oral
inquiry
is
must
whether
the
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. State Public Service Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
1063
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.

10. In State of U.P. and others Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha4, 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 aforementioned judicial
authorities have been referred to by the
Tribunal in its order to record its
conclusion that the inquiry officer was
legally bound to conduct an oral inquiry
informing the date, time and place of the
enquiry, providing an opportunity to the
delinquent employee to cross-examine the
witnesses, whether or not any request had
been made for the purpose and in the
absence thereof, the charges against the
employee could not be held to have been
proved.

12. The Tribunal has also recorded
that even the reply submitted by the
employee to the show cause notice issued
by the disciplinary authority consequent to
the inquiry and the defence raised therein
have not been accorded consideration and
the disciplinary authority has passed the
order of punishment only on the basis of
inquiry report in gross disregard to the
provisions under the Rules, 1999 and also
the principles of natural justice.

13. The departmental proceedings
pursuant to which the punishment order
has been passed having thus not followed
the procedure prescribed under the Rules,
1999 and there being several procedural
infirmities in the conduct of enquiry, the
order of punishment has rightly been held
to be legally unsustainable.

14. It has been consistently held that
a departmental inquiry against government
servant is not to be treated as a casual
exercise and the principles of natural
justice are required to be observed so as to
ensure not only that justice is done but is
manifestly seen to be done; the object
being to ensure that the delinquent is
treated fairly in proceedings which may
culminate in imposition of a major penalty
against him.

15. The meaning of a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the
action proposed to be taken is that the
delinquent
employee
is
afforded
a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself
against charges on which inquiry is held
and has to be given an opportunity to deny
his guilt and establish his innocence.

16. The administrative authorities are
obliged in law to follow their own
regulations, policies and procedures with
regard
to
conduct
of
departmental
proceedings and non-adherence thereto
would have potential of causing serious
prejudice to the person concerned in the
inquiry proceedings and would clearly
amount
to
denial
of
a
reasonable
opportunity to submit a plausible and
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
effective rebuttal to the charges being
enquired into.

17. In the present case, as the inquiry
officer failed to fix any date, place or time
in the conduct of inquiry and the absence of
any witness having been examined to
support the charges levelled against the
respondent-employee has led to a situation
where the delinquent has been condemned
unheard. The entire proceedings, being a
violation of principles of natural justice and
total disregard of procedural fairness, have
rightly been held by the Tribunal to be
vitiated.

18. The principal contention sought to
be raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that once the charges stand
proved, there is no need of any formal oral
inquiry
or
cross-examination
of
the
witnesses, cannot be held to be sustainable
for the reason that the same would amount
to gross denial of a fair opportunity to the
delinquent to place his defence and would
amount to by-passing the procedure under
the Rules, 1999, apart from being violative
of the principles of natural justice.

19. The Tribunal upon taking notice
of the fact that the respondent no. 2
(petitioner in the claim petition) had
expired during the pendency of the claim
petition held that no fruitful purpose would
be served in remitting the matter for fresh
enquiry and while allowing the petition and
quashing the order of punishment, the
appellate order and the revisional order, the
Tribunal has rightly directed the benefits
withheld due to the said punishment order,
be refunded to the legal representatives of
the deceased respondent no. 2.

20. No other ground has been urged
on behalf of the petitioner to support the
challenge to the order passed by the
Tribunal.

21. The petition thus fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1064
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 704 of 1996

Prem Raj & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.S. Kushwaha, Sri Brijendra Kumar
Ojha

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri G.D. Pandey

A.
Civil
Law
-
Civil
Procedure
Code,1908 - O. 41 R. 24 - Power of the
First Appellate Court - Remand of the
matter
to
the
trial
court,
when
interference is warranted - Held, the
appellate court is under obligation to
decide by itself the lis between the
parties unless it comes to the definite
finding that the matter requires leading
of evidence once again by the Court
below - The remand of matter which
has been decided by and between the
parties has to be in rarest of the rare
cases. (Para 6)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Sunder Singh Vs Narain Singh; 1969 SCD 900