# Uma Shanker Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 78
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-15
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4891 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uma-shanker-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54549
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Government Servants
(Disciple and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7
- Disciplinary proceeding - Major penalty
7 All. Uma Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
79
- No copy of the inquiry report was
supplied - Disciplinary authority failed to
verify the relevant aspect as to whether
the Inquiry Officer had fixed date, time
and place for conducting the oral inquiry -
Effect - Disciplinary authority imposed
major punishment only on the basis of
inquiry report - Validity challenged -
Held, this is a settled law that for
conducting the departmental inquiry, the
Inquiry Officer shall fix date, time and
place for conducting oral enquiry and after
the conclusion of the inquiry by the
Inquiry Officer, the copy thereof shall be
furnished/submitted
before
the
disciplinary
authority,
thereafter,
the
disciplinary authority shall provide the
copy
of
the
inquiry
report
to
the
delinquent employee seeking explanation
thereon
-
Departmental
inquiry
is
conducted in a violation of Rule 7 of Rules,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,484 of 51,419. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39484 for what follows._

78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfaction seems to be based upon some
material that ought to have been discussed
as has been discussed in paragraph-5 of the
counter affidavit. There is no quarrel upon
the legal position and that the bank can
make its own circular and compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter
of vested right. However, while passing the
order denying a claim means that right at
least a substantive right which as per the
bank own policy vests in the dependents of
the deceased, a well reasoned order should
have been passed. Thus, consideration
should be objective enough so as to apprise
the concerned aggrieved party about valid
reasons
for
denial
of
claim
for
compassionate appointment.

7. The law is well settled, no
amount of defence taken in the reply or
pleading can substitute the lacuna as to
reasoning in the order if the order is cryptic
and, accordingly. In the case of Mohinder
Singh
Gill
Vs.
Chief
Election
Commissioner (1978) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 405 vide paragraph-8 Court has
observed thus:

 "8. The second equally relevant
matter is that when a statutory functionary
makes an order based on certain grounds,
its validity must be judged by the reasons
so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to
Court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later
brought out.".

8. In view of the above, the order
dated 05.01.2024, impugned herein this
petition is held unsustainable. The order
dated 05.01.2024 Annexure No.1 to the
writ petition, passed by the Assistant
General
Manager,
Canara
Bank
(respondent No. 3) is hereby quashed.

9. The matter is remitted to the
Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank
(respondent No. 3) to pass fresh order, this
time reasoned and speaking one.

10. It is clarified that merely
because certain details have not been found
to be placed in the order regarding financial
condition or background of the petitioner
should not itself become a ground to deny
the claim again and there has to be an
objective consideration of the material
available before the authority while passing
the order and the order should be reasoned
and speaking one. Appropriate decision
should be taken by the competent authority
within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this
order.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 78
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 4891 of 2024

Uma Shanker Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arun Kumar Pandey, I.M. Pandey Ist

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Government Servants
(Disciple and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7
- Disciplinary proceeding - Major penalty
7 All. Uma Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
79
- No copy of the inquiry report was
supplied - Disciplinary authority failed to
verify the relevant aspect as to whether
the Inquiry Officer had fixed date, time
and place for conducting the oral inquiry -
Effect - Disciplinary authority imposed
major punishment only on the basis of
inquiry report - Validity challenged -
Held, this is a settled law that for
conducting the departmental inquiry, the
Inquiry Officer shall fix date, time and
place for conducting oral enquiry and after
the conclusion of the inquiry by the
Inquiry Officer, the copy thereof shall be
furnished/submitted
before
the
disciplinary
authority,
thereafter,
the
disciplinary authority shall provide the
copy
of
the
inquiry
report
to
the
delinquent employee seeking explanation
thereon
-
Departmental
inquiry
is
conducted in a violation of Rule 7 of Rules,
1999. (Para 6, 9 and 10)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010) 2
SCC 772

2. Writ A No. 26819 of 2019; Eklavya Kumar Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 07.02.2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard.

2. This Court has passed the order
dated 2.7.2024 which reads as under:-

"1. Heard Shri I.M. Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing
Counsel-II.

2. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has assailed the impugned
punishment order dated 07.03.2024 passed
by
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation,
Barabanki withholding two increments of
salary of the petitioner permanently and
censure entry. The main ground to assail
the
aforesaid
impugned
order
of
punishment is that the Inquiry Officer has
not conducted the oral inquiry by fixing
date, time and place; the disciplinary
authority issued a show cause notice
without providing the copy of the inquiry
report and despite the specific demand
made by the petitioner to supply the copy of
inquiry report and to direct the Inquiry
Officer
to
make
oral
inquiry,
the
punishment order have been passed.

3. Attention has been drawn
towards Annexure No.11, which is a show
cause
notice
being
issued
by
the
disciplinary authority, wherein there is no
indication of supply of the copy of the
inquiry report, therefore, prima facie, it
convinces the Court that the show cause
notice have been issued to the petitioner
without providing the inquiry report.

4. The aforesaid ground may be
liable to quash the impugned order of
punishment but on the request of learned
Chief Standing Counsel-II, the case is listed
on 08.07.2024. Therefore, list/ put up this
matter on 08.07.2024 as fresh in the
additional cause list.
5. This matter shall be
taken up immediately after fresh.

6. By the next date of listing,
learned Chief Standing Counsel-II may
seek complete written instructions in this
matter."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid
order, learned Standing Counsel has
produced
a
copy
of
the
detailed
instructions/letter dated 4.7.2024 along
with some documents, the same is taken on
record.

4. The precise query of this Court
was that as to whether the disciplinary
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority has provided a copy of the inquiry
report to the delinquent employee seeking
explanation on the basis of the inquiry
report inasmuch as there was no recital to
this effect in the explanation being sought
by the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid
instructions categorically reveals that the
copy of the inquiry report was not provided
to
the
delinquent
employee
seeking
explanation on the basis of inquiry report
before passing the impugned order of
punishment dated 7.3.2024. However, as
per aforesaid instructions, the copy of the
inquiry report has been provided to the
petitioner on 30.5.2024. Besides, no
specific instructions have been provided on
the other query regarding fixing date, time
and place for conducting oral inquiry by the
Inquiry Officer.

5. Notably, a proper and complete
mechanism has been given in Rule 7 of the
U.P. Government Servants (Disciple and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred
as 'Rules, 1999') for imposing major
penalties. Rule 9 provides 'Action on
Inquiry Report'. Rule 7 (i, ii, iv, v, vii, viii
and ix) and Rule 9 (4) read as under:

"7-Procedure
for
imposing
major penalties- Before imposing any
major penalty on a Government Servant, an
inquiry shall be held in the following
manner:

(i) The Disciplinary Authority
may himself inquiry into the charges or
appoint an Authority Subordinate to him as
Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges.

(ii) The Facts constituting the
misconduct on which it is proposed to take
action shall be reduced in the from of
definite charge or charges to be called
charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be
approved by the Disciplinary Authority.
Provided
that
where
the
Appointing
Authority is Governor, the charge-sheet
may
be
approved
by
the
Principal
Secretary or the Secretary, as the case may
be, of the concerned department.

...

(iv) The charge Government
Servant shall be required to put in a written
statement of his defence in person on a
specified date which shall not be less than
15 days from the date of issue of chargesheet and to state whether he desires to
cross-examine any witness mentioned in the
charge-sheet and whether desires to give or
produce evidence in his defence He shall
also be informed that in case he does not
appear or file written statement on the
specified date, it will be presumed that he
has none to furnish and inquiry officer
shall proceed to complete the inquiry exparte.

(v) The charge-sheet, along with
the copy of the documentary evidences
mentioned therein and list of witnesses and
their statements, if any shall be served on
the
charged
Government
Servant
personally or by registered post at the
address mentioned in the official records in
case the charge-sheet could not be served
in aforesaid manner, the charge- sheet
shall be served by publication in a daily
newspaper having wide circulation:

Provided
that
where
the
documentary
evidence
is
voluminous,
instead of furnishing its copy with chargesheet, the charge Government servant shall
be permitted to inspect the same before the
Inquiry Officer.

...

(vii)
Where
the
charged
Government Servant denies the charge the
Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the
witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and
record their oral evidence in presence of
the charge Government Servant who shall
be given opportunity to cross- examine
7 All. Uma Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
81
such
witnesses.
After
recording
the
aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry officer
shall call and record the oral evidence
which the charged Government Servant
desired in his written statement to be
produced in his defence:

Provided that the Inquiry Officer
may for reasons to be recorded in writing
refuse to call a witness.

(viii) The inquiry officer may
summon any witnesses to give evidence or
require any person to produce documents
before him in accordance with the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Departmental inquiries (Enforcement of
Attendance of witnesses and production of
documents) Act 1976.

(ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask
any question he pleases, at any time of any
witness or from person charged with a view
to discover the truth or to obtain proper
proof of facts relevant to charges.

9(4).
If
the
Disciplinary
Authority, having regard to its finding on
all or any of charges is of the opinion that
any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be
imposed
on
the
charge
Government
Servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry
report and his finding recorded under subrule (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 charge 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 and
communicate the same to the charged
Government Servant."

6. This is a settled law that for
conduting the departmental inquiry, the
Inquiry Officer shall fix date, time and place
for conducting oral enquiry and after the
conclusion of the inquiry by the Inquiry
Officer,
the
copy
thereof
shall
be
furnished/submitted before the disciplinary
authority,
thereafter,
the
disciplinary
authority shall provide the copy of the inquiry
report to the delinquent employee seeking
explanation thereon. The aforesaid exercise
has been indicated in the Rules, 1999 and the
same is in conformity with the principles of
natural justice. Without providing the copy of
the inquiry report, the delinquent employee
may not submit his explanation. Even if he is
called for personal hearing, that would not
suffice the purpose inasmuch as unless and
until the delinquent employee receives the
copy of the inquiry report, he would not be
able to defend himself properly.

7. The aforesaid position of law is a
trite position of the law and the Hon'ble
Apex Court in a catena of cases has held that
the disciplinary authority shall furnish/supply
the copy of inquiry report to the delinquent
employee seeking explanation but in the
present case, this settled position of law is not
known to the disciplinary authority, i.e.,
Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki
and in the absence of supply of inquiry
report, the impugned punishment order dated
7.3.2024 has been passed. However, after
passing the aforesaid impugned punishment
order, the copy of the inquiry report has been
supplied to the petitioner on 30.5.2024, as has
been indicated in the instructions/letter which
was of no avail.

8. The Apex Court in re: State of
U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in
(2010) 2 SCC 772 has held as under:

 30. When a departmental enquiry
is conducted against the government
servant it cannot be treated as a casual
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exercise. The enquiry proceedings also
cannot be conducted with a closed mind.
The inquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The rules of natural justice are
required to be observed to ensure not only
that justice is done but is manifestly seen to
be done. The object of rules of natural
justice is to ensure that a government
servant is treated fairly in proceedings
which may culminate in imposition of
punishment including dismissal/removal
from service.

...

37. We are of the considered
opinion that the aforesaid observations are
fully
applicable
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case. Non-disclosure
of documents having a potential to cause
prejudice to a government servant in the
enquiry proceedings would clearly be
denial of a reasonable opportunity to
submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to
the charges being enquired into against the
government servant.

...

39. The proposition of law that a
government
employee
facing
a
departmental enquiry is entitled to all the
relevant statements, documents and other
materials to enable him to have a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself in
the departmental enquiry against the
charges is too well established to need any
further reiteration. Nevertheless given the
facts of this case we may re-emphasise the
law as stated by this Court in State of
Punjab v. Bhagat Ram [(1975) 1 SCC 155 :
1975 SCC (L&S) 18] : (SCC p. 156, paras
6-8)

"6. The State contended that the
respondent was not entitled to get copies of
statements. The reasoning of the State was
that
the
respondent
was
given
the
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
and during the cross-examination the
respondent would have the opportunity of
confronting
the
witnesses
with
the
statements. It is contended that the synopsis
was adequate to acquaint the respondent
with the gist of the evidence.

7. The meaning of a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the
action proposed to be taken is that the
government
servant
is
afforded
a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself
against charges on which inquiry is held.
The government servant should be given an
opportunity to deny his guilt and establish
his innocence. He can do so when he is told
what the charges against him are. He can
do so by cross-examining the witnesses
produced against him. The object of
supplying statements is that the government
servant will be able to refer to the previous
statements of the witnesses proposed to be
examined against the government servant.
Unless the statements are given to the
government servant he will not be able to
have an effective and useful crossexamination.

8. It is unjust and unfair to deny
the
government
servant
copies
of
statements of witnesses examined during
investigation and produced at the inquiry
in support of the charges levelled against
the government servant. A synopsis does
not satisfy the requirements of giving the
government
servant
a
reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the
action proposed to be taken."

9. This is really a sorry state of
affairs
that
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation has punished the petitioner
by means of the impugned order dated
7.3.2024 (Annexure-1) without supplying
the copy of the inquiry report and the copy
thereof has been supplied to the petitioner
on 30.5.2024, therefore, the aforesaid fact
makes it crystal clear that the disciplinary
7 All. Uma Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
83
authority
i.e.,
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation, Barabanki is not aware
about the settled position of law. Even the
disciplinary authority did not verify the
relevant aspect of the departmental inquiry
as to whether the Inquiry Officer had fixed
date, time and place for conducting the oral
inquiry inasmuch as it is neither clear from
the inquiry report nor from the instructions
letter so produced today, therefore, the
impugned punishment order vitiates on
both the courts, i.e., at the stage of inquiry
and at the time of seeking explanation from
the petitioner by the disciplinary authority
on the basis of inquiry report which has
admittedly been not supplied to the
petitioner
before
imposing
major
punishment.

10. Looking into the manner of
administrative officers of the State of U.P.
who are made inquiry officer to conduct the
departmental inquiry against the employees
and noticing the fact that the departmental
inquiry is conducted in a violation of Rule
7 of Rules, 1999, this Court has expressed
its concern and anguish, vide judgement
and order dated 7.2.2023, in a bunch of writ
petitions, leading writ petition bearing
Writ-A No. 26819 of 2019 : Eklavya
Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, the
relevant extract thereof reads as under:

"...The
seriousness
of
the
situation resulted in repeated orders passed
by the Supreme Court, by this Court as well
as Government Orders issued. Relevant
amongst these read as follows:-

This Court in the case of Prakash
Chandra Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and
another (Writ-A No.2555 of 2022, decided
on 7.5.2022, passed the following order:

"1. Present writ petition is filed
by
the
petitioner
challenging
his
punishment order dated 11.04.2022 passed
by Additional Chief Secretary/Principal
Secretary,
Secretariat
Administration
Department, Lucknow (respondent no.2).

2.
By
the
impugned
order,
petitioner is given a punishment of censure
entry and reversion to the post of Section
Officer from the post of Under-Secretary.

3. At the very outset, learned
counsel for petitioner submits that the
inquiry was conducted by the Special
Secretary, Medical Education Services,
U.P., who submitted her report on
25.08.2021. He submits that in the present
case, the inquiry officer was never provided
the documents to which she had relied upon
in the inquiry. The said documents were
summoned by the inquiry officer during the
conduct of the inquiry and were also
perused by her. However, neither copy of
the said documents were provided to the
petitioner nor the same were permitted to
be perused by the petitioner. Learned
counsel for petitioner further submits that a
bare perusal of the report shows that the
inquiry was conducted in violation of Rule7 of the U.P. Government Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1999'),
as no date, time and place was fixed in the
inquiry.

4. I have perused the inquiry
report as well as the impugned punishment
order. A bare perusal of the same shows
that the inquiry officer has, in fact, not
merely failed to follow the procedure
provided by Rule-7 of Rules of 1999 but
has also placed burden upon the delinquent
employee to prove that he is not guilty. In
the first line of discussion, the inquiry
officer states, that, delinquent employee
through
his
reply
to
the
chargesheet/statements could not submit any
evidence which would prove that the
delinquent employee is wrongly charged.
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. In the present case, the
Additional Chief Secretary was summoned
along with the record. Today he is present
in Court along with the record and with his
assistance as well as assistance of the
counsels for parties, record is perused.
Learned Standing Counsel also could not
show from the record of the case that the
procedure as prescribed under Rule-7 of
Rules of 1999 is followed in conducting the
inquiry and any date, time and place was
fixed for evidence or evidence relied
upon/summoned was provided to the
petitioner.

6. Though the matter is simple as
it is to be remanded back, but, in large
number of cases filed before this Court, it is
found that the inquiry with regard to major
penalty is conducted in violation of Rule-7
of Rules of 1999. The present case is a
glaring example of the same. Inquiry
officer is a Special Secretary and the
punishing
authority
is
a
Principal
Secretary. Still a glaring error is committed
in conduct of the inquiry by the inquiry
officer and in failure to check the same by
the punishing authority before punishment
order was issued. It is not merely the duty
of the inquiry officer to comply with the
Rule-7 but also the duty of the punishing
authority,
while
passing
order
of
punishment, to ensure that the inquiry is
conducted as per the procedure prescribed.

7.
Such
mistakes
in
large
numbers are occurring for quite some time
now in the State. The State Government as
far back as on 22.04.2015 issued a detailed
government order explaining at length the
manner in which inquiry with regard to
minor punishment or major punishment
should be conducted. The government
order explains at length what is already
prescribed in Rule-7. When the inquiries
were still not being conducted in proper
manner, again under order of this Court
dated
13.01.2021
passed
in
Writ-A
No.12110 of 2020; 'State of U.P. & Others
Vs. Vijay Anand Tiwari', a Government
Order dated 10.02.2021 was issued by the
State Government for compliance of Rule7. Despite two aforesaid government
orders, the inquiries are still not conducted
in a proper manner. It is sad to note that
the both the aforesaid government orders
are also not being complied with by the
officials. It is also noted that in large
number of cases, after remand when the
inquiry
is
re-conducted,
the
same
procedural error is again made and again
the inquiry report is submitted without
following the due procedure as per Rule-7.
This is also putting burden of unnecessary
litigation upon this Court. It is the duty of
the inquiry officer as well as the punishing
authority to ensure compliance of Rule-7.

8. Since these incidences are
abundant in number, therefore, this Court
finds it necessary now to ensure that every
inquiry
officer,
who
at
present
is
conducting an inquiry or appointed to
conduct any inquiry in future, is provided
proper training with regard to the manner
and procedure for conducting the inquiry.
Similarly the disciplinary authorities are
also required to go through a training with
regard to the manner in which the inquiries
are to be conducted and, thereafter,
punishment orders are to be passed. It goes
without saying that the power exercised by
the inquiry officers are quasi judicial in
nature and for the same a judicially trained
mind is required. The State Government is
already having a Judicial Training and
Research
Institute
(J.T.R.I.)
which
trains/educates the officers of the State
Government
on
the
legal
compliances/procedures.

9. Therefore, Director, J.T.R.I.,
Lucknow is directed to forthwith prepare
an appropriate program for training of the
7 All. Uma Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
85
inquiry officers as well as for training of
the disciplinary authorities so that such
mistakes are not repeated. The J.T.R.I shall
also issue an appropriate identifiable
certificate to every officer after he/she
completes
the
training
session.
The
relevant details of the said training
session/certificates shall be referred by the
officer concerned in every inquiry report
submitted by him/her or punishment order
passed. All the officers who are conducting
any inquiry at present in the State shall
attend the training without any delay and
such inquiry officers shall conclude their
inquiries only after their training is
completed.
Similarly
the
punishing
authority shall also go through the
required training before passing any
punishment order and also refer to their
session/certificate. It is further directed
that no inquiry officer in future shall be
appointed for departmental inquiry who
has not received the training from the
J.T.R.I. The State government shall bear
the cost of the aforesaid training at J.T.R.I.
at its own cost.

10. Senior Registrar of this Court
shall forthwith send a copy of this order to
the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. as
well as Director, J.T.R.I., Lucknow for its
compliance.

11. Since, in the present case,
admittedly, there is violation of Rule-7 as
the documents relied upon by the inquiry
officer
were
never
provided
to
the
petitioner nor the inquiry is conducted
following the procedure prescribed under
Rule-7, i.e., by summoning the witnesses of
the department, giving chance of cross
examination, providing opportunity to the
delinquent employee/petitioner to call his
witnesses, therefore, impugned order dated
11.04.2022 cannot stand and is set aside.

12. The matter is remanded back
to respondent no.2 for conducting fresh
inquiry after following proper procedure as
prescribed under Rule-7.

13. With the aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed."

Supreme Court in the case of
State of U.P. and others vs. Vijaya Nand
Tiwari: Special Leave to Appeal No.10331
of 2022, has passed following comments on
13.7.2022 with regard to working of the
State Government:

"As the inquiry was found to be in
breach of Rule 7 (vii) of the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal), Rules, 1999 (for short of 1999"),
as such the learned Tribunal rightly set
aside the order of punishment. In fact, the
learned Tribunal allowed the back wages
to the extent of 50% only. The same is
rightly confirmed by the High Court.
Therefore, there is no merit in the Special
Leave Petition and the same deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

At this stage, it is required to be
noted that while passing the impugned
order, the High Court has shown its
displeasure and observed and issued
directions to the Chief Secretary, State of
U.P.
to
look
into
the
matter
and
appropriately direct the Secretaries of
concerned departments to ensure that
inquiry is conducted after observing Rule 7
of the Rules of 1999 in strict terms and
more specially to lead oral evidence to
prove the charges. The High Court has
passed the following order -

"Before
parting
with
the
judgment, it is necessary to indicate that
time and again Tribunal is causing
interference in the order of punishment
finding violation of Rule 7(vii) of the Rules
of 1999.

Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999
provides for oral evidence and invariably
not followed in the enquiry despite catena
of judgments of this Court causing
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interference the order of punishment. The
violation of the Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of
1999 results not only interference of order
of punishment but financial burden on the
Government in shape of back wages.

The Chief Secretary, State of U.P.
is directed to look into the matter and
appropriately direct the Secretaries of
concerned departments to ensure that
enquiry is conducted after observing Rule 7
of the Rules of 1999 in strict terms and
more specially to lead oral evidence to
prove the charges.

Necessary
direction
in
compliance of this order would be issued
by office of Chief Secretary, State of U.P.
with an information to this Court in
reference to the present order.

The registry is directed to send
the copy of this order to Chief Secretary,
State of U.P. for compliance within a
period of one month from the date of its
receipt."

Nothing is on the record to show
any further steps taken by the Chief
Secretary, State of U.P. in furtherance of
the aforesaid directions issued by the High
Court. Only for that purpose, the Registry
is directed to notify the matter before this
Bench on 18.07.2022 so as to enable the
learned counsel for the petitioners. to place
on record what steps are taken by the Chief
Secretary, State of U.P. in compliance with
the directions issued by this Court, as
above.

Pending applications shall stand
disposed of."

Further, the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case of Vijaya Nand Tiwari
(supra) passed the following order on
18.7.2022.

"Pursuant to our earlier Order
dated 13.07.2022, an Affidavit is filed on
behalf of the State of U.P. The affidavit is
filed by one Chintan, posted as Prabhagiya
Nirdeshak, Van Vibagh, Mau, U.P. which
ought to have been filed either by the Chief
Secretary or from the office of the Chief
Secretary. In the affidavit, it is pointed out
that, pursuant to the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, the
Chief Secretary has issued the Circular
dated 10.02.2021, directing that in all the
departmental enquiry proceedings in the
State, Rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 shall have to be followed.

When a pointed question was
asked to the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State that
whether the Circular dated 10.02.2021 has
been scrupulously thereafter followed or
not.
in
the
subsequent
departmental
enquires, he has stated that he has no
further instructions in the matter and he
cannot make any statement on that. Mere
issuance of a Circular by the Chief
Secretary to follow the rules is not
sufficient. When the Chief Secretary has
issued the Circular, it is his duty to see that
his own Circular is followed.

Therefore, we direct the Chief
Secretary to see that his own Circular
dated 10.02.2021 to follow Rule 7 (vii) of
the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999 shall be followed
by
all
concerned
Officers
in
the
departmental enquiries so that the order of
punishment
on
conclusion
of
the
departmental enquiry is not set aside on the
technical ground of not following the
procedure as required under Rule 7 (vii) of
the Rules, 1999. The Chief Secretary, State
of Uttar Pradesh is directed to act
accordingly. He must also ensure that if his
own Circular is not followed, in that case,
a further departmental enquiry be initiated
against the erring officers, which may be
including the insubordination and not
7 All. Uma Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
87
following the Circular issued by the Chief
Secretary.

With this, we close the present
proceedings."

The Government Order dated
10.8.2022 issued by the State Government
reads as under:

 loksZPPk izkFkfedrk
 la[;k&10@2022@738fjV@dk&1&2022
@131⁄491⁄21998
 isz"kd]
 nqxkZ 'kadj feJ]
 eq[; lfpo
 mRRkj izns'k 'kkluA
 lsok esa]
 leLr
vij
eq[;
lfpo@izeq[k
lfpo@lfpo]
 mRRkj izns'k 'kkluA
 dkfeZd vuqHkkx&1 y[kuÅ% fnukad 10
vxLr] 2022
 fo"k;&
foHkkxh;
dk;Zokfg;ksa
(Departmental
enquiries)
esa
lEcfU/kr
vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk mRRkj izns'k ljdkjh lsod 1⁄4vuq'kklu
,oa vihy1⁄2 fu;ekoyh] 1999 ds fu;e&7 (vii) dk
vuqikyu u fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaA
 egksn;]
 ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds le{k nk;j
,l0,y0ih0 1⁄4flfoy1⁄2 la[;k&10331@2022 mRRkj
izns'k jkT; o vU; cuke fot;kuUn frokjh esa ek0
mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 13-072022 lifBr vkns'k fnukad 18-07-2022 ds eq[;
fdz;kRed va'k fuEuor~ gS&
"...... Mere issuance of a circular
by the Chief Secretary to follow the rules is
not sufficient. When the Chief Secretary has
issued the circular, it is his duty to see that
his own Circular is followed.
 Therefore, we direct the Chief
Secretary to see that his own circular dated
10.02.2021 to follow rule 7(vii) of the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 shall be followed by
all concerned officers in the departmental
enquiries so that the order of punishment
on conclusion of the departmental enquiry
is not set aside on the technical ground of
not following the procedure as required
under Rule 7 (vii) of the Rules, 1999. The
Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh is
directed to act accordingly. He must also
ensure that if his own Circular is not
followed,
in
that
case,
a
further
departmental enquiry be initiated against
the erring officers, which may be including
the insubordination and not following the
circular issued by the Chief Secretary.
 With this, we close the present
proceedings."
 2- ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds mi;qZDr
vkns'kksa ds leknj esa vkidk /;ku 'kklukns'k
la[;k&01@2021@131⁄491⁄21998&20fjV@dk&1&2021
fnukad&10-02-2021 dh vksj vkd`"V djrs gq, eq>s
vkils ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd izR;sd foHkkxh;
tkap ds izdj.k esa m0iz0 ljdkjh lsod 1⁄4vuq'kklu ,oa
vihy1⁄2 fu;ekoyh] 1999 ds fu;e&7 (vii) dk
vfuok;Z :i ls vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djk;k tk;] ;fn
mDr dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr ugha fd;k tkrk gSa rks
nks"kh (erring) vf/kdkfj;ks ds fo:n~/k foHkkxh;
tkap lafLFkr djus dh dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tk;sA
The State Government issued
Government Order dated 16.8.2022, which
reads as under:
 "la[;k&11@2022@lSrkfyl&dk&1@20
22@13(3)@2022
 izs"kd]
 nqxkZ 'kadj feJ]
 eq[; lfpo]
 mRRkj izns'k 'kkluA
 lsok esa]
 leLr
vij
eq[;
lfpo@izeq[k
lfpo@lfpo]
 mRRkj izns'k 'kkluA
 dkfeZd vuqHkkx&1 y[kuÅ % fnukad 16
vxLr] 2022
 fo"k;% mRRkj izns'k ljdkjh lsod ds
vUrxZr foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ksa dk fu;ekuqlkj fuLrkj.k
ds laca/k esa tk¡p vf/kdkfj;ksa dks izf'k{k.k fn, tkus
ds laca/k esaA
 d`i;k fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&2555@2022
fjV&, izdk'k pUnz vxzoky cuke mRRkj izns'k jkT; o
vU; esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad
07 ebZ 2022 ds fo:) jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;ksftr
fo'ks"k vihy la[;k&97@2022 esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky;
}kjk fnukad&22-07-2022 dks ikfjr fd;s x, vkns'k
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftldk dk;Zdkjh
va'k fuEuor~ gS%

"............At this stage, we are only
examining the issue regarding training part
of Enquiry Officers in the State. Learned
Single Judge vide order dated May 7, 2022
issued direction that no Enquiry Officer in
future shall be appointed for departmental
inquiry, who has not received training from
the Judicial Training & Research Institute
(hereinafter referred to as "JTRI"). We find
2 Special Appeal Defective No.97 of 2022
that this sweeping direction will withhold
number of inquires, which are pending in
the different departments in the State
keeping in view the infrastructure available
in the JTRI. For conducting such inquiries,
the importance of training to the officers,
who have to hold the departmental inquiry,
may not be lost sight of keeping in view the
repeated violation of principles of natural
justice and the rules governing such
inquiries.
 5. In the affidavit filed today,
certain communications have been annexed
and figures have been provided regarding
training programs conducted after passing
of the aforesaid order and from April 1,
2022
onwards.
It
is
claimed
that
departmental inquiry is one of the subject
in the training programme of the Officers
but what we find prima facie is that the
training being imparted is not yielding the
results as required, as still the rules and
principles of natural justice are found to be
violated. The training programme for such
Officers has to be more robust and
specialised, for which the State is directed
to place before the Court a comprehensive
plan.
 6. As the sweeping directions
issued by the learned Signle Judge will
withhold all the departmental inquiries, we
stay those directions to the extent - ''that no
Officer in future shall be appointed for
departmental
inquiry
unless
he
has
received training from JTRI'. However, we
expect that in the pending inquiries, the
Officers holding such inquiries shall be
sensitised without any delay and further the
training programs of the Officers shall be
regular exercise."
 2- ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k
fnukad&22-07-2022 ds dze esa voxr djkuk gS fd
mRRkj izns'k jkT; ds ljdkjh lsodksa ds fo:)
vuq'kklfud dk;Zokfg;k¡ fd, tkus ds laca/k esa mRRkj
izns'k ljdkjh lsod 1⁄4vuq'kklu ,oa vihy1⁄2 fu;ekoyh]
1999 izFke la'kks/ku fu;ekoyh] 2014] 'kklukns'k
dze'k% fnukad 22-04-2015] fnukad& 11-08-2015]
fnukad 10-02-2021 vkSj fnukad 19-07-2022 eq[; :i
ls fuxZr fd, x, gSaA

3- mRRkj izns'k ljdkjh lsod 1⁄4vuq'kklu
,oa vihy1⁄2 fu;ekoyh] 1999 ds fu;e&7 ds v/khu
lafLFkr vuq'kklfud tk¡p ds izdj.k esa fu;qDr tk¡p
vf/kdkfj;ksa ds ekxZn'kZu gsrq eq[; :i ls fuEukafdr
fn'kk funsZ'k 'kklukns'k fnukad 19-07-2022 ds ek/;e
ls fuxZr fd, x, gS%

1⁄4v1⁄2&ftldk
vuqikyu
vko';d
gS
(Do's)-

(I) vipkjh dkfeZd }kjk ;fn vfHkys[kksa
ds fujh{k.k dh vis{kk dh tkrh gks rks mls fujh{k.k
dk volj vo'; iznku fd;k tk;sA

(II) vipkjh dkfeZd ls viuk fyf[kr
Li"Vhdj.k 15 fnu ls 01 ekg ds vUnj izLrqr djus
dks dgk tk;sA

(III) ;fn tkap] iwoZ fu;qfDr ds LFkku ls
lacaf/kr gS rks vipkjh ljdkjh lsod dks ml LFkku
ij tkus dh vuqefr ns nh tk;s] tgk¡ mls vfHkys[k
vkfn ns[kus gSA

(IV) tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk vipkjh dkfeZd
dks lk{; ds vUrxZRk fn;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dh Lohdk;Zrk
ds laca/k esa vkifRRk izdV djus dk volj Hkh fn;k
tk;sA

(V) vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod dks viuk
i{k izLrqr djus dk ;qfDr;qDr volj fn;k tkuk
pkfg,A ;fn vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod vkjksiksa ls bUdkj
djrk gSa] ogka tkap vf/kdkjh vkjksi i= esa IkzLrkfor
lkf{k;ksa
(Witneses)
dks
izfrijh{k.k
(CrosExamination) gsrq cqyk ldrk gSA tkap vf/kdkjh
}kjk muds ekSf[kd lk{;ksa dks vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dh
mifLFkfr esa vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk;sA mi;qZDr lk{;ksa
dks vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i'pkr tk¡p vf/kdkjh ml
ekSf[kd lk{; dks ek¡xsxk vkSj mls vfHkfyf[kr djsxk
7 All. Uma Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
89
ftls vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod us viuh izfrj{kk esa vius
fyf[kr dFku esa izLrqr djuk pkgk FkkA

izfrcU/k ;g gS fd tk¡p vf/kdkjh ,sls
dkj.kksa ls tks fyf[kr :i ls vfHkfyf[kr fd, tk,xsa]
fdlh lk{kh dks cqykus ls bUdkj dj ldsxkA

(VI) tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk tk¡p ds nkSjku
xokgksa ds c;ku vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod ds le{k rFkk
fof/kor 'kiFk fnyokus ds mijkUr fy;k tk;sA

(VII) tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk laiw.kZ tkap dh
dk;Zokgh esa d`r dk;Zokfg;ksa dk vkns'k i=d (order
sheet) rS;kj fd;s tk;s ftl ij ;Fkkle; vkjksfir
vf/kdkjh ,oa vU; lkf{k;ksa ds gLrk{kj djk;k tk;sA
tk¡p vk[;k izLrqr djrs le; tk¡p vk[;k ds lkFk
mDr vksn'k i=d dks layXud ds :i esa vuq'kklfud
izkf/kdkjh dks iszf"kr fd;k tk;sA

1⁄4c1⁄2&fu"ks/kkRed funsZ'k (Don'ts)-

(I) lkekU;r;k vipkjh dkfeZd dks viuk
Li"Vhdj.k fn;s tkus gsrq 02 ekg ls vf/kd dk le;
u fn;k tk;sA fdUrq vifjgk;Z ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mDRk
le; lhek esa ;qfDr&;qDr (Reasonable) o`f) dh tk
ldrh gSA

(II) tk¡p vf/kdkjh dks tk¡p vk[;k esa
izLrkfor n.M ds fo"k; esa dksbZ earO; vFkok laLrqfr
vafdr ugh dh tk;sA

(III) fcuk mfpr dkj.k ds tkap dk;Zokgh
yfEcr ugh j[kh tk;sA

(IV) lquokbZ] lk{; vFkok vU; dk;Zokgh
gsrq fu;r frfFk;ksa dks vkxs u Vkyk tk;sA ;fn ,slk
djuk vifjgk;Z gks rks mls ldkj.k vkns'k i=d esa
mfYYkf[kr fd;k tk;sA

4- orZeku esa izpfyr vuq'kklfud
dk;Zokfg;ksa ls lEcfU/kr tkap vf/kdkfj;ksa dks izLrj&3
esa mfYYkf[kr funsZ'kksa dks miyC/k] djkrs gq, muls bl
vk'k; dk izek.k i= izkIr dj fy;k tk;s fd muds
}kjk mDr funsZ'kksa dks i<+dj Hkyh&Hkakfr le> fy;k
x;k gSA Hkfo"; esa Hkh ftruh vuq'kklfud dk;Zokfg;ka
lafLFkr dh tk,a muds tkap vf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh mudh
fu;qfDr i= ds lkFk gh bldh izfr layXu djrs gq,
bl vk'k; dk izek.k&i= izkIr dj fy;k tk;s fd
muds }kjk bu funsZ'kksa dks i<+dj Hkyh&Hkkafr le>
fy;k x;k gSA