# State of U.P v. Rakesh Jain & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1235
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-27
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2001313 of 2015
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-rakesh-jain-anr-49318
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7
(vii) - UP Government Servant Conduct
Rules, 1956 - Rule 15 - Unauthorized
absent - Punishment - Dismissal from
service
-
Disciplinary
proceeding
-
Enquiry Officer has neither called the
witnesses
and
recorded
their
oral
evidences nor the charged Government
servant was given any opportunity to
cross-examine or allowed to produce any
witnesses
-
Tribunal
allowed
claim
petition - Punishment order was quashed
with
direction
to
give
consequential
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
benefit - Validity challenged - Held,
where it is found that the enquiry is
vitiated and/or the same is in violation of
the principles of natural justice, in that
case, the Court/Tribunal should set-aside
the order and remand the matter to the
Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to
proceed further with the enquiry. (Para 13
and 23)

B. Service Law - Disciplinary enquiry -
Principal of natural justice - audi alteram
partem - There is a rich jurisprudence
already developed on the point that the
basic principle to be followed in conduct
of
any
disciplinary
proceedings
is
providing for a reasonable opportunity in
the wake of principles of natural justice of
which one of the cardinal principles is audi
alteram partem. (Para 14)

C. Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Judicial review - Reappraisal
of
evidence
-
Scope
of
interference - High Court cannot in
judicial review re-apprise the evidence or
substitute its own views taken by the
departmental authorities, who are the
master of facts - However, insofar as
the procedural aspect is concerned,
any infraction or illegality, which
causes prejudices to the concerned,
would be in violation of the principles
of
natural
justice
and
would
consequentially vitiates the inquiry.
(Para 15)

Writ petition allowed (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rakesh Jain & Anr.
1235

(i)
That
Ram
Kishor
will
regularly deposit current rent with the
Prescribed Authority by the seventh day of
each calendar month and along with the
first deposit, arrears of rent, if any, due in
terms of the interim order passed by this
Court
on
26.11.2014
shall
also
be
deposited.

(ii)
That
Ram
Kishor
will
handover vacant possession of the demised
shop to the landlord peacefully and without
obstruction of any kind either by himself or
the other tenants or anyone else, on or
before 25.01.2024.

(iii) That during the period of
four months that Ram Kishor remains in
possession, he will not induct a sub-tenant
or allow trespassers to occupy the demised
shop, which he will maintain in good repair
until delivery of possession to the landlord.

(iv) That an undertaking on
affidavit shall be furnished by Ram Kishor
before
the
Prescribed
Authority
incorporating the above terms within
twenty days of date.

40. In the event of failure to furnish
an undertaking to the above effect by Ram
Kishor, or not abiding by the terms of the
undertaking, the release order shall become
executable forthwith.

41. The costs directed to be paid
hereinabove shall be deposited with the
Prescribed Authority by the Ram Kishor
within a month. In the event, costs, as
above, are not deposited, the same shall be
recovered from Ram Kishor as arrears of
land revenue by the District Magistrate
upon certification in this behalf by the
Prescribed Authority. Upon realisation of
costs, the District Magistrate shall remit the
proceeds to the Prescribed Authority, who
shall release the same in the landlord's
favour forthwith.

42. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Prescribed Authority, Jhansi through the
learned District Judge, Jhansi.

----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1235
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI,
J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 2001313 of 2015

State of U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Jain & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manish Misra, Sri Sandeep
Kumar Shukla

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7
(vii) - UP Government Servant Conduct
Rules, 1956 - Rule 15 - Unauthorized
absent - Punishment - Dismissal from
service
-
Disciplinary
proceeding
-
Enquiry Officer has neither called the
witnesses
and
recorded
their
oral
evidences nor the charged Government
servant was given any opportunity to
cross-examine or allowed to produce any
witnesses
-
Tribunal
allowed
claim
petition - Punishment order was quashed
with
direction
to
give
consequential
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
benefit - Validity challenged - Held,
where it is found that the enquiry is
vitiated and/or the same is in violation of
the principles of natural justice, in that
case, the Court/Tribunal should set-aside
the order and remand the matter to the
Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to
proceed further with the enquiry. (Para 13
and 23)

B. Service Law - Disciplinary enquiry -
Principal of natural justice - audi alteram
partem - There is a rich jurisprudence
already developed on the point that the
basic principle to be followed in conduct
of
any
disciplinary
proceedings
is
providing for a reasonable opportunity in
the wake of principles of natural justice of
which one of the cardinal principles is audi
alteram partem. (Para 14)

C. Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Judicial review - Reappraisal
of
evidence
-
Scope
of
interference - High Court cannot in
judicial review re-apprise the evidence or
substitute its own views taken by the
departmental authorities, who are the
master of facts - However, insofar as
the procedural aspect is concerned,
any infraction or illegality, which
causes prejudices to the concerned,
would be in violation of the principles
of
natural
justice
and
would
consequentially vitiates the inquiry.
(Para 15)

Writ petition allowed (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Union of India Vs T.R. Verma; AIR
1957 SC 882

2. Yog Narayan Dubey Vs Managing
Director & ors.; 2012 (29) LCD 2024

3. Radhekant Khare Vs U.P Cooperative
Sugar Factories Federation Ltd.; 2003(21)
LCD page 610

4. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National
Bank & ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570
5. St. of Uttaranchal & ors. Vs Kharak
Singh; (2008) L&S SCC 698

6. St. of U. P. & ors. Vs Saroj Kumar
Sinha; (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 675,

7. Raj Kumar Mehrotra Vs St. of Bihar &
ors.; (2006) SCC (L&S) 679

8. U.O.I. Vs Mohan Lal Kapoor; (1973)
2SCC 836

9. Kranti Association (P) Ltd. Vs Masood
Ahmad Khan; (2010) 9 SCC 510

10. G. Valli Kumar Vs Andhra Education
Society; 2010 (92) SCC 479

11. Chairman, L.I.C. of India & ors. Vs A.
Masilamani; (2013) 6 SCC 530

12. St. of U. P. Vs Rajit Singh; 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 341

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash
Shukla, J.)

(1) The instant writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the State
authorities/petitioners, challenging the
correctness of the judgment and order
dated 21.08.2014 passed by the State
Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'the
Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal,
while allowing the Claim Petition No.
234 of 2012 and quashing the order of
punishment
dated
23.03.2010
and
appellate order dated 22.02.2012, has
directed the petitioners/State to decide
the matter of salary and other benefits
admissible
to
the
respondent
no.1/employee
for
the
period
07.05.2005
to
23.03.2010
in
accordance with rules within three
months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of the order.
10 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rakesh Jain & Anr.
1237

(2) The facts of the case, succinctly,
stated
are
that
the
respondent
no.1/employee was appointed as Punch
Operator in the year 1985 and joined as
such in the office of Deputy Commissioner
(E), Commercial Tax, Moradabad, on
15.06.1985.
Apparently,
when
the
respondent no.1/employee was posted as
Computer Operator, he proceeded on
Casual
Leave
w.e.f.
13.10.1999
to
19.11.1999
on
account
of
certain
unavoidable family problems and on
account of ill health. Thereafter, according
to the petitioners/State authorities, he was
unauthorizedly absent from duty till the
year 2005.

(3) It is alleged by the respondent
No.1/employee that although he has joined
the duty on 07.05.2005, however, on
joining duty on 07.05.2005, no action was
taken on his joining and he had been
attending the office regularly. According to
him, a charge-sheet came to be served on
the respondent no.1/employee only on
28.01.2009, levelling four charges against
him, including violation of Rule 15 of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
Conduct Rules, 1956 as he was allegedly
found to be working as a Director with
Springdale's
School,
Patel
Nagar,
Ghaziabad during his employment as a
Government Servant and also unauthorized
absent from duty from 13.10.1997 to
06.05.2005.

(4) On receipt of the charge-sheet
dated 28.01.2009, the respondent no.1
submitted his reply on 18.02.2009, denying
all the aforesaid charges so levelled
against him.

(5) According to the respondent
no.1/employee, after submission of the
reply to the charge-sheet on 18.02.2009,
the Enquiry Officer had not afforded any
opportunity to defend nor fixed any date,
time and place for oral enquiry nor had
given him any opportunity of crossexamination of the relevant witnesses and
as
such
without
conducting
proper
enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its
report dated 10.07.2009, recommending
that charge nos. 1 and 2 were proved and
charge nos. 3 and 4 were not proved
against the respondent no.1/employee.
Thereafter, a show cause notice dated
14.09.2009 along with the enquiry report
dated 10.07.2009 were issued to the
respondent no.1/employee, to which he
submitted his reply dated 09.11.2009. On
receipt of the reply dated 09.11.2009, the
disciplinary authority passed the order
of punishment dated 23.03.2010 against
the respondent no.1/employee, whereby
he was awarded the punishment of
censure and stoppage of two increments
permanently.

(6) The respondent no.1/employee,
thereafter,
preferred
a
review
application, seeking to review the
aforesaid
punishment
order
dated
23.03.2010, which was rejected vide
order dated 21.09.2010. Thereafter, the
respondent no.1/employee preferred an
appeal against the punishment order
dated 23.03.2010, which was also
rejected vide order dated 22.02.2012.

(7) Aggrieved by the order of
punishment dated 23.03.2010 and the
appellate order dated 22.02.2012, the
respondent
no.1/employee
preferred
Claim Petition No. 234 of 2012 before
the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, vide
judgment/order
dated
21.08.2014,
allowed the claim petition partly with the
direction as mentioned in paragraph-1
hereinabove.
It
is
this
order
dated
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21.08.2014, which has been challenged in
the instant writ petition.

(8) Heard Shri Amitabh Rai, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
representing the State/petitioners and Shri
Manish
Misra,
learned
Counsel
representing the respondent no.1/employee.

(9)

Assailing
the
impugned
judgment/order dated 21.08.2014 passed by
the learned Tribunal, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel representing the
petitioners/State Authorities has drawn our
attention to the reasoning given by the
learned Tribunal while allowing the claim
petition and argued that the learned
Tribunal, while passing the judgment/order
dated 21.08.2014, has merely recorded that
the disciplinary proceedings against the
respondent no.1 was not held by following
due process of law inasmuch as no date,
time
and
place
was
fixed
by
the
disciplinary authority during the enquiry
proceedings and the enquiry report was
solely prepared after considering the reply
of the delinquent employee/respondent no.1
without conducting any oral enquiry.
According to him, this finding of the
learned Tribunal is erroneous as during the
course
of
enquiry,
the
delinquent
employee/respondent no.1 had never asked
for holding oral enquiry nor asked for
examination of any witnesses, however, the
Enquiry Officer fixed five dates for
personal hearing so that the delinquent
employee/respondent no.1 may produce his
evidence in support of his stand rebutting
the charges.

(10) The next submission of the
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
representing the respondent no1/employee
is that the learned Tribunal has allowed the
claim
petition
vide
impugned
judgment/order merely observing that there
was a procedural defect in the enquiry
proceedings. According to him, in such a
situation, the learned Tribunal ought to
have remanded the matter back to the
disciplinary proceedings to hold fresh
enquiry from the stage the defect has crept
in the disciplinary proceedings, but the
learned Tribunal quashed the punishment
order without remanding the matter back to
the disciplinary authority. Thus, on this
count also, the impugned judgment/order is
liable to be set-aside.

(11) Per contra, learned Counsel
representing the respondent no.1/employee
has
supported
the
impugned
judgment/order passed by the learned
Tribunal and argued that during the course
of enquiry, no date, time and place was
fixed by the Enquiry Officer and the
Enquiry Officer submitted its report solely
after considering the written reply of the
respondent no.1/employee. This defect has
been ascertained by the learned Tribunal on
the basis of the record available before it.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly
allowed the claim petition preferred by the
respondent no.1/employee.

(12) Having regard to the submissions
advanced by the learned State Counsel
representing
the
State
authorities/petitioners and going through
the record available before this Court in the
instant writ petition, it is required to be
noted that admittedly, the order of
punishment dated 23.03.2010 was passed
primarily for the reason that the respondent
No.1/employee was unauthorizedly absent
from his duty and was engaged in private
employment, in breach of Rule 15 of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
Conduct Rules, 1956. It is the case of the
respondent No.1/employee that although he
10 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rakesh Jain & Anr.
1239
resumed his services on 07.05.2005, but the
charge-sheet in question came to be served
to him only on 28.01.2009.

(13) The learned Tribunal has
returned a specific finding that although the
disciplinary
proceeding
was
initiated
against the respondent No.1/employee by
issuing a charge-sheet, however, Rule 7
(vii) of the Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 was not followed, inasmuch as the
Enquiry Officer has neither called the
witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and
recorded their oral evidences nor the
charged Government servant was given any
opportunity to cross-examine or allowed him
to produce any witnesses. The learned Tribunal
has observed that oral hearing was not afforded
to the respondent No.1/employee and the
Enquiry Officer had submitted its report only
on considering the reply of the respondent
No.1/employee submitted by him to the chargesheet. The said findings have been contested by
the State/petitioners by arguing that the
respondent No.1/employee had never sought
for any oral enquiry or examination of
witnesses.

(14) No doubt, disciplinary proceeding in
service jurisprudence is not a proceeding to be
equated with a proceeding under a criminal or
civil trial, where strict rules of the Indian
Evidence Act would apply. However, there is a
rich jurisprudence already developed on the
point that the basic principle to be followed in
conduct of any disciplinary proceedings is
providing for a reasonable opportunity in the
wake of principles of natural justice of which
one of the cardinal principles is audi alteram
partem.

(15) Further, it is also trite that this Court
cannot in judicial review re-apprise the
evidence or substitute its own views taken by
the departmental authorities, who are the master
of facts. However, insofar as the procedural
aspect is concerned, any infraction or illegality,
which causes prejudices to the concerned,
would be in violation of the principles of natural
justice and would consequentially vitiates the
inquiry.

(16) Apparently, the documents and the
oral evidence collected against a delinquent
employee in the course of departmental enquiry
has to be established as permissible under
law. Though the enquiry would not adopt
the strict rules of evidence, yet documents
collected or adduced during the course of
inquiry have to be legally proved with
regards to its admissibility. No doubt, the
admissibility of such a document will not
be judged in the context of the Evidence
Act, 1872, but would be examined on the
touchstone of a reasonable opportunity and
the principles of audi alteeram partem.
Further, unless a document in the inquiry is
not proved validly, the same ought not to
be made admissible and consequently
cannot be relied upon for the purposes of
preparation of the Enquiry Report, as any
reliance of such document, would amount
to consideration of extraneous material,
which cannot be the purview of any valid
enquiry.

(17) The Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in Union of India Vs. T.R.
Verma : AIR 1957 SC 882, held that right
to cross-examination even in service
jurisprudence
and
in
a
disciplinary
proceeding is a fundamental constitutional
right of a Government servant, which
cannot be defeated by any rule or
instruction.

(18) In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds that the Tribunal has rightly
relied on Rule-7 (vii) of the Uttar Pradesh
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rule 1999 and the judgment of (i)
Yog Narayan Dubey Vs. Managing
Director and others: 2012 (29) LCD
2024, (ii) Division Bench judgment in
Radhekant Khare V/s U.P Cooperative
Sugar
Factories
Federation
Ltd.
:
2003(21) LCD page 610, (iii) Roop Singh
Negi Vs Punjab National Bank and
Others: (2009) 2 SCC 570, (iv) State of
Uttaranchal and others V/s Kharak
Singh : (2008) L&S SCC 698 and (v) State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Saroj
Kumar Sinha, (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 675,
to arrive at a conclusion that the whole
enquiry in the present case was in violation
of the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of
the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1999.

(19) Although, the learned Counsel
for the State/petitioners has submitted that
five dates were given by the Enquiry
Officer, however, we find that apparently
neither the witnesses cited were examined
nor the documents forming part of the
enquiry report were proved, nor the enquiry
report talk about the opportunity of crossexamination having been afforded to the
respondent No.1/employee. Thus, the right
of the respondent No.1 was prejudiced and
as such this Court is also of the view that
the Tribunal has rightly come to the
conclusion that enquiry seems to be vitiated
and as such the punishment order passed on
the basis of the said defective enquiry
report cannot be sustainable in the eyes of
law.

(20) Further, there is another aspect of
the matter. The Tribunal has also returned a
finding that the impugned punishment
order is non-speaking, unreasoned and has
been passed without any application of
mind, inasmuch as the points raised by the
respondent No.1/employee in the reply to
the show-cause notice have not at all been
considered while passing the punishment
order. The Tribunal has, thus, returned a
finding that since material points in reply to
the show cause notice have not been
properly addressed and considered by the
disciplinary authority, the punishment order
is non-speaking, unreasoned and without
application of mind and in that regard, the
learned
Tribunal
has
relied
on
the
judgments of (i) Raj Kumar Mehrotra
Vs. State of Bihar and Others :(2006)
SCC (L&S) 679, (ii) Union of India Vs.
Mohan Lal Kapoor ( 1973) 2SCC 836,
(iii) Kranti Association (P) Ltd. Vs
Masood Ahmad Khan : (2010) 9 SCC
Page 510 and G. Valli Kumar V/s Andhra
Education Society : 2010 (92) SCC 479.
However, we are altogether unable to agree
with this view expressed by the learned
Tribunal. Apparently, Rule 9(4) of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1999 does
not lay down any particular form or manner
in which the disciplinary authority should
record its findings on each charge. All that
the Rule, 1999 requires is that the record of
the enquiry and representation of the
charged Government servant, if any, should
be considered and the disciplinary authority
should proceed to pass a reasoned order.
This does not and cannot mean that it is
obligatory on the disciplinary authority to
discuss all the points raised by the charged
government servant and the facts and
circumstances
established
at
the
departmental enquiry in detail and write as
if it were an order or a judgment of a
judicial
Tribunal.
The
rule
certainly
requires the disciplinary authority to give
consideration to the representation of the
charged government servant which, as
expressly
stated,
was
done
by
the
disciplinary Authority. The Rule, 1999
10 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rakesh Jain & Anr.
1241
after all has to be read not in a pedantic
manner, but in a practical and reasonable
way and if so read it is difficult to escape
from the conclusion that the Disciplinary
Authority had substantially complied with
the requirements of the Rule, 1999. The
interference by the learned Tribunal,
therefore, on the ground that it had been
passed without adverting to the contents
and so called important points raised in the
reply of the respondent No.1/employee is
not justified.

(21) Further, this Court finds that an
alternative argument has been raised as
submitted by the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel representing the State.
According to him, in case, the enquiry was
held to be vitiated, the proper course of
action for the Tribunal would had been to
remand the matter to the disciplinary
authority to hold fresh enquiry from the
stage the defect has crept in the disciplinary
proceedings and not to have quashed the
punishment order and give consequential
benefit, without remanding the matter to
the disciplinary authority.

(22) On due consideration, this
Court is of the view that the learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
representing the State/petitioners has
raised a very significant ground, which
needs consideration. It appears that the
order passed by the Tribunal is bereft of
any finding or discussion as to why it has
not
remanded
the
matter
to
the
disciplinary authority and chose to quash
itself
the
punishment
order
dated
23.03.2010 and the appellate order dated
22.02.2012
and
grant
consequential
benefits to the respondent No.1. Thus, this
Court unable to find any reasoning of the
Tribunal on that respect, has no choice but
have to task itself to deal with the said
issue, as raised by the learned Counsel for
the State.

(23) As per the settled proposition of
law, in a case where it is found that the
enquiry is vitiated and/or the same is in
violation of the principles of natural justice,
in that case, the Court/Tribunal should setaside the order and remand the matter to
the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority
to proceed further with the enquiry from
the stage of violation of principles of
natural justice is noticed and the enquiry
has to be proceeded further after curing the
said violation. The Apex Court in the case
of
Chairman,
Life
Insurance
Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A.
Masilamani : (2013) 6 SCC 530, observed
at paragraph 16 as herein under :-

"16.
It
is
a
settled
legal
proposition, that once the court sets aside
an order of punishment, on the ground that
the enquiry was not properly conducted,
the court cannot reinstate the employee. It
must remit the case concerned to the
disciplinary authority for it to conduct the
enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated,
and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B.
Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], Hiran
Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for
Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg.
Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264]
and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008)
12 SCC 30])."

(24) Further, recently the Apex Court
in view of the settled law in A.
Masilamani's case (supra), observed in
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajit Singh :
2022 SCC OnLine SC 341 as under :-

".............Applying the law laid
down in the case of A. Masilamani (supra)
to the facts of the case on hand, we are of
1242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the
High Court ought to have remanded the
matter to the Disciplinary Authority to
conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood
vitiated. Therefore, the order passed by the
High Court in not allowing further
proceedings from the stage it stood vitiated,
i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet,
is unsustainable".

(25) We are in full agreement with the
aforesaid proposition of law as submitted
by
the
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners/State and technically the matter
ought to have been remanded to the
Tribunal for re-consideration on the said
aspect.

(26) As a sequel to the above
discussion and for the reasons stated above,
the instant writ petition is allowed. The
impugned judgment and order dated
21.08.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal
is hereby set-aside. However, as the
enquiry is found to be vitiated and is found
to be in violation of the principles of
natural justice inasmuch as it is alleged that
during the course of enquiry, no date, time
and place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer
for oral evidence/ cross-examination and
the Enquiry Officer submitted its report
merely on the basis of written reply of
the
respondent
no.1/employee,
this
Court
remand
the
matter
to
the
Disciplinary Authority to conduct a
fresh enquiry from the stage it stood
vitiated and to proceed with the enquiry
in compliance of Rule 7(vii) of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1999 after
following due principles of natural
justice.

(27) The aforesaid exercise shall
be completed within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of the order, keeping in view
that the issue is of the year 2009.

(28) In the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1242
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-A No. 7450 of 2023

Deepak Dewvedi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sharad Pathak, Piyush Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh, Ran Vijay
Singh

A. Practice and Procedure - Constitution
of India - Article 226 - Writ - Scope -
Non-compliance of the order of the
Supreme Court alleged - How far High
Court has power to issue writ for
compliance of the order of Supreme
Court - Held, once the judgement has
been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and there is non compliance of
the same as such it is always open for
the petitioners to file a contempt
petition
but
there
cannot
be
any
occasion for the High Court to have the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court complied with - In case of noncompliance
of
the
judgement
of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the power is
vested in Supreme Court itself to take