# State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 555
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-04-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 14724 of 2024
- **Bench:** Dipankar Datta, Prashant Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-uttar-pradesh-through-principal-secretary-department-of-panchayati-raj-38806
- **Pages:** 56

## Headnote

Whether, in pursuance of a purported enquiry where there was
none to present the case of the department, no witness was
examined in support of the charges and no document was formally
proved, any order of punishment could validly be made; whether
the disciplinary authority was justified in placing reliance on a
report of enquiry prepared by the Enquiry Officer who had looked
into documents which were not provided to the respondent and
had arrived at findings of guilt only on the basis of the chargesheet, the reply thereto of the respondent and such documents;
whether failure or omission or neglect of the disciplinary authority
to furnish the enquiry report had the effect of vitiating the enquiry;
whether the enquiry not having been completed within the time
stipulated by the Tribunal in its order dated 23rd January, 2014, the
disciplinary proceedings could have been continued beyond May,
2014; whether, and if at all, the appellant should be granted one
more opportunity to conclude the enquiry against the respondent
within the time to be stipulated by this Court.
Headnotes†
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - r.9(4) - Civil Service Regulations - Art. 351-A - According
to the appellant, the respondent had engaged in embezzlement
of panchayat funds - High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Uttar Pradesh
State Public Services Tribunal (Tribunal) whereby it had set
aside the order of punishment imposing on the respondent a
penalty of Rs.10.25 lakh with 5% reduction in pension for five
years - Whether on facts, the enquiry was conducted by the
Enquiry Officer in disregard of the 1999 Rules - Respondent, if
* Author
276
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was punished by the disciplinary authority without due process
being followed in taking disciplinary action against him:
Held: Yes - Impugned order of the High Court does not suffer
from any legal infirmity, upheld - Enquiry was conducted by the
Enquiry Officer in clear disregard of the 1999 Rules relating to
conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the
appellant - After the first round of litigation before the Tribunal
leading to quashing of the order of dismissal, the Enquiry officer
could not have repeated the same mistake by not calling witnesses
to record their oral statements as well as to prove the documents
generated in course of the preliminary enquiry - Respondent was
thus, punished by the disciplinary authority without due process
being followed in taking disciplinary action against him - Further,
there was blatant disregard by the appellant of not only principles
of natural justice and the judicial command in B. Karunakar's
case by not furnishing the enquiry report but also by not following
the applicable statutory rule - Therefore, the enquiry was wholly
vitiated - Furthermore, the enquiry not having been completed within
the time stipulated by the Tribunal in its order dtd. 23.01.2014, the
disciplinary proceedings could not have been continued beyond
May, 2014 - Thus, without an extension of time, no order of
punishment could have been validly made - Lastly, the appellant
despite being given an opportunity to proceed in accordance with
law failed to utilise such opportunity - Tribunal and the High Court
were justified in not granting one more opportunity to the appellant
to resume proceedings from the stage invalidity in the proceedings
was detected - Respondent entitled to full retiral benefits from
the date of his superannuation without deduction. [Paras 9, 10,
59, 64, 71, 72]
Disciplinary action for misconduct - Departmental Enquiry -
Non-service of Enquiry report - Right to receive the enquiry
report fundamental safeguard in disciplinary proceedings -
Test of prejudice - What is the effect and impact of nonfurnishing the report of enquiry by the disciplinary authority
to a delinquent employee before he is punished; Does he
have to plead and prove 'prejudice'; Is it

## Text

_Characters 0–39,766 of 128,442. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39766 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 275 : 2025 INSC 555
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary,
Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow
v.
Ram Prakash Singh
(Civil Appeal No. 14724 of 2024)
23 April 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether, in pursuance of a purported enquiry where there was
none to present the case of the department, no witness was
examined in support of the charges and no document was formally
proved, any order of punishment could validly be made; whether
the disciplinary authority was justified in placing reliance on a
report of enquiry prepared by the Enquiry Officer who had looked
into documents which were not provided to the respondent and
had arrived at findings of guilt only on the basis of the chargesheet, the reply thereto of the respondent and such documents;
whether failure or omission or neglect of the disciplinary authority
to furnish the enquiry report had the effect of vitiating the enquiry;
whether the enquiry not having been completed within the time
stipulated by the Tribunal in its order dated 23rd January, 2014, the
disciplinary proceedings could have been continued beyond May,
2014; whether, and if at all, the appellant should be granted one
more opportunity to conclude the enquiry against the respondent
within the time to be stipulated by this Court.
Headnotes†
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - r.9(4) - Civil Service Regulations - Art. 351-A - According
to the appellant, the respondent had engaged in embezzlement
of panchayat funds - High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Uttar Pradesh
State Public Services Tribunal (Tribunal) whereby it had set
aside the order of punishment imposing on the respondent a
penalty of Rs.10.25 lakh with 5% reduction in pension for five
years - Whether on facts, the enquiry was conducted by the
Enquiry Officer in disregard of the 1999 Rules - Respondent, if
* Author
276
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was punished by the disciplinary authority without due process
being followed in taking disciplinary action against him:
Held: Yes - Impugned order of the High Court does not suffer
from any legal infirmity, upheld - Enquiry was conducted by the
Enquiry Officer in clear disregard of the 1999 Rules relating to
conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the
appellant - After the first round of litigation before the Tribunal
leading to quashing of the order of dismissal, the Enquiry officer
could not have repeated the same mistake by not calling witnesses
to record their oral statements as well as to prove the documents
generated in course of the preliminary enquiry - Respondent was
thus, punished by the disciplinary authority without due process
being followed in taking disciplinary action against him - Further,
there was blatant disregard by the appellant of not only principles
of natural justice and the judicial command in B. Karunakar's
case by not furnishing the enquiry report but also by not following
the applicable statutory rule - Therefore, the enquiry was wholly
vitiated - Furthermore, the enquiry not having been completed within
the time stipulated by the Tribunal in its order dtd. 23.01.2014, the
disciplinary proceedings could not have been continued beyond
May, 2014 - Thus, without an extension of time, no order of
punishment could have been validly made - Lastly, the appellant
despite being given an opportunity to proceed in accordance with
law failed to utilise such opportunity - Tribunal and the High Court
were justified in not granting one more opportunity to the appellant
to resume proceedings from the stage invalidity in the proceedings
was detected - Respondent entitled to full retiral benefits from
the date of his superannuation without deduction. [Paras 9, 10,
59, 64, 71, 72]
Disciplinary action for misconduct - Departmental Enquiry -
Non-service of Enquiry report - Right to receive the enquiry
report fundamental safeguard in disciplinary proceedings -
Test of prejudice - What is the effect and impact of nonfurnishing the report of enquiry by the disciplinary authority
to a delinquent employee before he is punished; Does he
have to plead and prove 'prejudice'; Is it in all or specific
circumstances that the courts would insist on the delinquent
employee to demonstrate 'prejudice'; Is furnishing of the
report of enquiry merely a procedural step in the disciplinary
proceedings or something more - Law declared in Constitution
Bench judgment in B. Karunakar's case - Interpretation of -
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
277
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh
Shifting of trend towards the 'prejudice' principle; insistence
on the pleading and proof of 'prejudice' - Constitution of
India - Article 311. [Paras 37-44, 52]
Departmental Enquiry - Furnishing of enquiry report -
Mandatory - Test of 'prejudice':
Held: The requirement of furnishing the report of enquiry, though
procedural, is mandatory and the bogey argument of the employer
to apply the test of 'prejudice' when the report of enquiry is not
furnished cannot be of any avail to thwart the challenge of the
delinquent employee - Such test could call for application, if from the
facts and circumstances, it can be established that the delinquent
employee waived his right to have the report furnished - Should
satisfactory explanation be not proffered by the employer for its
failure/omission/neglect to furnish the enquiry report, that ought to be
sufficient for invalidating the proceedings and directing resumption
from the stage of furnishing the report - No proof of prejudice for
breach of a statutory rule or the principles of natural justice and
fair play need be proved, unless there is a waiver, either express
or by conduct, to of the right to receive the report - It is only in
specific and not in all circumstances that proof of 'prejudice' ought
to be insisted upon. [Para 52]
Departmental Enquiry - Evidence Act, 1872 - Applicability of -
Infirmity in the process of decision making in the present case:
Held: 'Materials brought on record by the parties' (to which
consideration in the enquiry ought to be confined) mean only
such materials can be considered which are brought on record in
a manner known to law - Such materials can then be considered
legal evidence, which can be acted upon - Though the Evidence
Act, 1872 is not strictly applicable to departmental enquiries, which
are not judicial proceedings, nevertheless, the principles flowing
therefrom can be applied in specific cases - Evidence tendered
by witnesses must be recorded in the presence of the delinquent
employee, he should be given opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses and no document should be relied on by the prosecution
without giving copy thereof to the delinquent - All these basic
principles of fair play have their root in such Act - In the present
case, the documents referred to in the list of documents forming
part of the annexures to the chargesheet, on which the department
seeks to rely in the enquiry, cannot be treated as legal evidence
278
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
worthy of forming the basis for a finding of guilt if the contents
of such documents are not spoken to by persons competent to
speak about them - A document does not prove itself - In the
enquiry, therefore, the contents of the relied-on documents have
to be proved by examining a witness having knowledge of the
contents of such document and who can depose as regards its
authenticity - In the present case, no such exercise was undertaken
by producing any witness - The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry
Officer in a manner not authorised by law could not have formed
the basis of the order of punishment dated 24.03.2015 imposed
on the respondent. [Paras 14, 18]
Departmental Enquiry - Challenge to order of punishment -
Non-furnishing of the report of enquiry to the employee - 'Test
of prejudice' - Applicability - Proper course for the tribunal/
court to adopt:
Held: Whenever a challenge is made to an order of punishment
on, inter alia, the ground that the report of enquiry has not
been furnished, the tribunal/court should require the employer
(Government, public or private) to justify non-furnishing of such
report - If no valid explanation is proffered and the tribunal/court
suspects unfair motives (report has not been furnished as part of
a strategic ploy or to advance an unholy cause or prompted by
extraneous reasons) or carelessness, without much ado and without
insisting for 'prejudice' to be demonstrated, the order of punishment
should be set aside and the proceedings directed to resume from
the stage of offering opportunity to the delinquent employee to
respond to the enquiry report - Irrespective of 'prejudice' being
demonstrated, no employer or for that matter anyone should be
permitted to gain any benefit by violating the law - In case the
tribunal/court is satisfied that real effort was made by the employer
but such effort remained abortive because the report could not
be furnished to the employee for reason(s) beyond its control, or
some other justification is placed on record, which is acceptable
to the tribunal/court, the test of 'prejudice' is open to be applied
but only after ensuring service of a copy of the enquiry report on
the employee - In a case where the employee either expressly or
by his conduct appears to have waived the requirement of having
access to the report, it would be open to the tribunal/court to deal
with the situation as per its discretion - However, the simplicitor
application of the 'prejudice' test absent a query to the employer,
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
279
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh
would be in the teeth of the law laid down by the Constitution
Bench in B. Karunakar's case. [Para 51]
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - r.9(4) - Departmental Enquiry - Non-furnishing of
the report of enquiry to the respondent-employee - "Test of
prejudice" - Plea of the appellant that the test of 'prejudice'
ought to be applied in this case since the respondent did
not participate in the enquiry and, therefore, there was no
obligation for the disciplinary authority to furnish such report:
Held: Except that the respondent had not participated in the
second round of enquiry and, hence, the disciplinary authority
was not under obligation to furnish him the enquiry report, there
is no other explanation as to why such report was not furnished to
the respondent - Even assuming that the respondent had without
justification stayed away from the enquiry, the disciplinary authority
could not have considered the report of the Enquiry Officer in
view of what has been held in paragraph 26 in B. Karunakar as
well as Rule 9(4) of the 1999 Rules - Also, since the report of
enquiry has been withheld by the appellant at all three tiers, it is
preposterous that he would be in a position to plead and prove
prejudice - Relying on the law declared in S.K. Sharma which,
had relied on B. Karunakar, the prejudice is self-evident and no
proof of prejudice as such is called for in this case - Adverse
presumption drawn that there was a purpose behind withholding
the report. [Paras 55, 59]
Practice and Procedure - Remittance of case - Requirements
of 'due process' not satisfied - Breach of statutory rules -
Whether present case be remitted to disciplinary authority:
Held: No - Remitting would mean reverting to the stage of
production of witnesses on behalf of the department - When
not a single witness could be produced for examination in 2010
and 2014, now witnesses would not be available to support the
charges - Proceedings have certain incidents of 2004-05 as the
origin - Having regard to the lapse of time since then coupled
with the retirement of the respondent from service in 2010 and,
more particularly, when the appellant despite an earlier opportunity
granted by the Tribunal has failed to avail the same by continuing
the enquiry in accordance with law, it would be highly unfair and
unjust to subject the respondent to face the enquiry once again -
280
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed is certainly
a vital consideration; however, repeated opportunities cannot be
claimed without there being overwhelming public interest warranting
such opportunity - On facts, second opportunity was not required
to be given - Also, two of the respondent's colleagues (one of
them a senior officer) who were also proceeded against were
practically let off with no punishment or punishment of stoppage
of increments - No useful purpose will be served by reviving the
disciplinary proceedings and in remitting the case to the appellant.
[Para 71]
Departmental Enquiry - Fixed time stipulated by tribunal/court
to conclude the proceedings - Extension of time:
Held: It may not always be possible for the disciplinary authority
in each such case where a fixed time has been stipulated by
a tribunal/court to conclude the proceedings to apply and seek
extension of time before expiry of such time although there can
be no gainsaying that applying and obtaining an extension before
expiry is eminently desirable - In exceptional cases, even after
expiry of the stipulated time, such an application can be moved;
and, depending on the cause shown for inability or failure to
conclude the proceedings within the time stipulated and also for
not applying for extension before expiry, the tribunal/court may,
in its discretion, allow or reject the prayer for extension - If the
application is rejected, the proceedings cannot be carried forward
unless a superior court, reversing the order of rejection, permits the
disciplinary authority to so proceed - If the delinquent employee
objects to continuation of proceedings beyond the time stipulated,
the disciplinary authority without proceeding further ought to apply
for extension of time and may not go ahead till such time its prayer
for extension is granted on such application - Proceeding despite
objection and without there being an extension could give rise to
apprehensions of bias - Therefore, applying for extension upon
halting the proceedings awaiting order on the application would
be an advisable course of action to balance the interests of both
the employer and the employee - Even if the delinquent employee
has not objected to continuation of proceedings beyond the time
stipulated by the tribunal/court but before the final order is passed in
the proceedings, the disciplinary authority would be bound to seek
and obtain extension of time - If a tribunal/court stipulates a fixed
time by which an enquiry or proceedings for disciplinary action ought
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
281
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh
to be concluded coupled with a rider that, in default, the enquiry/
proceedings will stand lapsed, the disciplinary authority in such a
case would cease to have the jurisdiction to proceed further unless,
citing genuine grounds, a recall of such default clause is sought
and obtained to proceed further in accordance with law. [Para 62]
Case Law Cited
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar [1993] Supp.
2 SCR 576 : (1993) 4 SCC 727 - followed.
State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [1996] 3 SCR 972 : (1996)
3 SCC 364 - relied on.
Board of Directors Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation v. HC
Rahi [2008] 3 SCR 97 : (2008) 11 SCC 502; M/s. Bareilly Electricity
Supply Company Limited v. The Workmen and Others (1971) 2
SCC 617; Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others
[2008] 17 SCR 1476 : (2009) 2 SCC 570; State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [2010] 2 SCR 326 : (2010) 2 SCC
772; Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another [2013] 5 SCR
200 : (2013) 4 SCC 301; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash
Chandra Ahuja [2008] 10 SCR 222 : (2008) 9 SCC 31; Union of
India v. Bishamber Das Dogra [2009] 9 SCR 828 : (2009) 13 SCC
102; Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Sinha [2010] 2 SCR
512 : (2010) 3 SCC 556; Union of India v. Alok Kumar [2010] 5
SCR 35 : (2010) 5 SCC 349; Punjab National Bank v. K.K. Verma
[2010] 11 SCR 311 : (2010) 13 SCC 494; Union of India v. R.P
Singh [2014] 6 SCR 351 : (2014) 7 SCC 340; SBI v. B.R. Saini
(2018) 11 SCC 83; Union of India and Others v. Dilip Paul [2023]
13 SCR 473 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1423; Dharampal Satyapal
Ltd. v. CCE [2015] 6 SCR 437 : (2015) 8 SCC 519; Swamy Devi
Dayal Hospital & Dental College v. Union of India [2013] 14 SCR
105 : (2014) 13 SCC 506; Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University
of Kerala [2020] 3 SCR 374 : (2020) 12 SCC 426; Mineral Area
Development Authority of India & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India &
Anr. [2024] 7 SCR 1549 : (2024) 10 SCC 257; Securities Exchange
Board of India v. Mega Corporation Limited [2022] 2 SCR 546 :
(2023) 12 SCC 802; T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board
of India and Anr. [2022] 16 SCR 212 : (2022) 8 SCC 162; State of
U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh [2020] 13 SCR 571 : (2021) 19 SCC
706; Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [2014] 13
SCR 617 : (2014) 9 SCC 105; Kailash Chander Asthana v. State
282
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of U.P. (1988) 3 SCC 600; Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan
[1990] Supp. 3 SCR 248 : (1991) 1 SCC 588; Union of India v.
E. Bashyan [1988] 3 SCR 209 : (1988) 2 SCC 196; Union of India v.
Tulsiram Patel [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 131 : (1985) 3 SCC 398; Olga
Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 51 :
(1985) 3 SCC 545; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [1988] Supp. 1 SCR
1 : (1988) 2 SCC 602; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [1981] 1 SCR
746 : (1980) 4 SCC 379; Union of India and Others v. Satyendra
Kumar Sahai and Another (2005) 12 SCC 355; A. Masilamani v.
LIC (2013) 6 SCC 530; Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tiwari
[2017] 1 SCR 389 : (2017) 2 SCC 308 - referred to.
Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthy v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
2013 SCC OnLine All 14267 - approved.
List of Acts
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999;
Evidence Act, 1872; Government of India Act, 1935; Constitution
(42nd Amendment) Act, 1976.
List of Keywords
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999;
Embezzlement of panchayat funds; Disciplinary proceedings;
Enquiry report not furnished/supplied; Non-furnishing of enquiry
report; Documents not supplied; Reliance on enquiry report;
Enquiry vitiated; Disciplinary action; Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Panchayati Raj Section; Uttar Pradesh State Public Services
Tribunal; No witnesses examined; No documents formally proved;
Order of dismissal; Order of punishment; "Irregular" enquiry;
Second round of disciplinary proceedings; Time stipulated to
conclude enquiry; Time period stipulated by the Tribunal expired;
No extension of time prayed; Functus officio; Sanction of Governor;
Article 351-A of the Constitution; Order quashed; Statutory
compliance; Clear disregard of the 1999 Rules relating to conduct
of disciplinary proceedings; Due process not followed; Test of
'prejudice'; Ratio decidendi of B. Karunakar case; Jurisprudence
on non-furnishing of the report of enquiry; Delinquent employee to
demonstrate 'prejudice'; Right to raise a fair defence; Fundamental
safeguard in disciplinary proceedings; Integral part of natural
justice; 'Reasonable opportunity to defend'; Article 141 of the
Constitution; Res ipsa loquitur; Enquiry stands vitiated; Remitting
the case.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
283
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh
Case Arising From
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal No. 14724 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SB No. 28859 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ruchil Raj.
Adv. for the Respondent:
Anil Kumar Mishra.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dipankar Datta, J.
The Challenge
1.
The challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to a judgment and
order dated 19th October, 20191 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.2 It is laid by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the unsuccessful
writ petitioner.3 The impugned order dismissed the writ petition4 of the
appellant, wherein the final order of the Uttar Pradesh State Public
Services Tribunal5 dated 19th November, 2018 was under challenge.
The Tribunal set aside the order of punishment dated 24th March,
2015 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10.25 lakh along with a 5% reduction
in pension for five years on Ram Prakash Singh.6
Factual Matrix
2.
The facts of the case are of great significance given the key
arguments advanced by the parties. Hence, we find it appropriate
1
impugned order
2
High Court
3
appellant
4
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 28859/2019
5
Tribunal
6
Respondent
284
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to briefly narrate the events having a bearing on our decision before
proceeding to examine the merits of the rival claims. The vital facts,
as culled out from the records, to decide the appeal are as follows:
I.
The respondent was serving as an Assistant Engineer in
District Panchayat, Kushinagar in 2004-2005.
II.
According to the appellant, the respondent had engaged in
embezzlement of panchayat funds to the tune of Rs. 2.5 crore
in relation to certain drainage and road construction projects.
In cahoots with the incumbent Junior Engineer, Ram Kripal
Singh, the respondent had created sham work records and
siphoned off panchayat funds.
III.
Consequently, in December, 2005, the Commissioner,
Gorakhpur Division7 was appointed to make a preliminary
enquiry. He directed the Technical Audit Cell and Divisional
Technical Examiner to determine the existence and extent of
financial irregularities committed by the respondent.
IV.
The Technical Audit Cell submitted the financial audit report
dated 16th January, 2006, which found the respondent to have
verified fake records of work created by the said Ram Kripal,
Junior Engineer. Vide another report dated 23rd February
2006, it was opined that there was a loss of Rs. 30.083 lakh
to the exchequer on account of the misconduct committed
by the respondent and others and that the respondent being
responsible for 35% of the said loss, Rs. 10.25 lakh was the
amount recoverable from him.
V.
On 12th April, 2006, the respondent was placed under
suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.
VI.
Respondent was served with a chargesheet dated 24th August,
2006. Five charges were framed against him. The audit reports
dated 16th January, 2006 and 23rd February 2006 constituted
the basis for the charges.
VII.
A challenge laid by the respondent to the order of suspension
dated 12th April, 2006 before the High Court in its writ
jurisdiction resulted in his reinstatement in service on 24th
November, 2006.
7
Enquiry Officer
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
285
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh
VIII.
The documents sought to be relied on by the appellant against
the respondent to drive home the charges were not supplied
to the respondent. Respondent, thus, furnished his reply on
2nd January, 2008 denying the charges against him in addition
to praying for a personal hearing.
IX.
The enquiry officer submitted his report of enquiry to the
appellant on 18th February, 2008 holding the respondent guilty
of all the charges.
X.
Per the respondent, there was no enquiry at all. No witness
was examined in support of the charges and he was not put
on notice. None proved the documents forming part of the
charge-sheet, which were also not supplied to him. Relying
on the charge-sheet, his reply thereto and the enquiry reports
obtained from Technical Audit Cell, the enquiry officer held
him guilty. Even copy of the enquiry report was not furnished.
XI.
Respondent reached the age of superannuation on 2nd August,
2010.
XII.
Almost after two and half years of submission of the enquiry
report by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent received on 2nd
August, 2010 an order dismissing him from service dated
26th July, 2010 passed by the Principal Secretary to the
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Panchayati Raj Section.
XIII.
Apart from being dismissed, a penalty of Rs. 10.52 lakh was
imposed on the respondent.
XIV.
Crestfallen with the order of dismissal received by him a couple
of days after the date of superannuation, the respondent
challenged such order by lodging a claim8 before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 23rd January,
2014, inter alia, returned findings on perusal of the enquiry
report that no enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in
accordance with Rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 19999 ordaining that when a
charge is denied by the charged officer, the Enquiry Officer
8
Claim Petition No. 1563/2010
9
1999 Rules
286
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the chargesheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged
officer who shall then be given opportunity to cross-examine
the witnesses. Holding that the order of dismissal could not
be sustained based on an "irregular" enquiry, the Tribunal
ordered the appellant to initiate enquiry proceedings against
the respondent from the stage of submission of reply within
three weeks from date of receipt of the judgment and conclude
the same within a period of an additional three months.
XV.
The three-month period stipulated by the Tribunal for
concluding the enquiry expired in April, 2014.
XVI.
In the wake of the decision of the Tribunal, the Enquiry Officer
addressed a letter dated 16th May, 2014 to the respondent
extending to him another opportunity to present any statement
or additional evidence within 15 days of receiving such letter.
XVII. However, according to the appellant, instead of participating,
the respondent refused to join the enquiry and raised frivolous
grounds to derail the same.
XVIII. Through a letter dated 23rd May 2014, the respondent replied
to the letter dated 16th May, 2014 stating that the time period
stipulated by the Tribunal had expired and no extension of
time having been prayed, the proceedings initiated against
him had lapsed. Respondent also contended that since he
had retired in 2010, no proceedings could be continued
against him.
XIX.
Vide his letter dated 05th June, 2014, the Enquiry Officer
once again called upon the respondent to file his additional
reply/explanation.
XX.
Respondent vide his letter dated 13th June, 2014 reiterated that
the Enquiry Officer had become functus officio and, therefore,
without any extension of time granted by the Tribunal, he had
no authority to proceed.
XXI.
Once again, the Enquiry Officer without recording the oral
evidence of any witness and merely on the basis of the chargesheet, reply and the documents gathered during preliminary
enquiry submitted a report of enquiry dated 15th September,
2014, holding the respondent guilty of all the charges.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
287
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh
XXII. After receiving the sanction of the Governor under Article
351-A, Civil Service Regulations10 on 05th January, 2015
(which was required because the respondent had retired),
the Joint Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Panchayati Raj Section issued a fresh order of punishment
on 24th March, 2015 reducing the pension of the respondent
by 5% for a period of five years and requiring recovery of
Rs. 10.52 lakh from his retiral benefits.
XXIII. Interestingly, the aforesaid order dated 24th March, 2015
though briefly refers to and summarises the enquiry report, it
is clear on perusal thereof that the Enquiry Officer proceeded
to hold the charges against the respondent established only
on the basis of the allegations in the charge-sheet and the
reply of the respondent. There is absolutely no reference to
statement of any witness being recorded or as to who proved
the documents which, in the opinion of the Enquiry Officer,
did support the case of the department that the respondent
had by his acts of omission/commission indulged in draining
the public exchequer in excess of Rs. 2 crore. Further, the
said order is completely silent as to whether the documents
relied on by the Enquiry Officer were at all made over to the
respondent. Also, the Principal Secretary quashed the earlier
order of punishment dated 26th July, 2010 and closed the
proceedings ordering fresh punishment, but little did he realise
that such order had been quashed earlier by the Tribunal vide
judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2014; hence such
order did not survive for being quashed.
XXIV. Dissatisfied with the order of punishment dated 24th March,
2015, the respondent once again invoked the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal to assail the order of the appellant by lodging a
fresh claim.11 The Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated
12th November, 2018, allowed the claim of the respondent
by setting aside the impugned order dated 24th March, 2015.
The Tribunal noted that, admittedly, copy of the enquiry report
was not supplied to the respondent; hence, the procedure
adopted by the appellant was in the teeth of Rule 9(4) of the
10
CSR
11
Claim Petition No. 471/2016
288
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1999 Rules. Further, it found that the enquiry had not been
conducted in terms of the 1999 Rules. Additionally, it was
recorded that the Tribunal on the earlier occasion having
granted three months' time to conclude the enquiry, submission
of the enquiry report dated 15th September, 2014 and the final
order of punishment dated 24th March, 2015 should have been
preceded by a permission being sought from the Tribunal
which, unfortunately, the appellant did not seek. Reliance
was placed by the Tribunal on the Full Bench decision of
the High Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthy v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd.12. It was laid down therein that if
the court stipulates a time for concluding the proceedings, it
will not be open to the employer to disregard that stipulation
and an extension of time must be sought. Based on such
reasons, the order of punishment dated 24th March, 2015
under challenge was set aside and the respondent was held
entitled to all service benefits that were stopped in terms
thereof. Compliance was directed to be ensured within a
period of three months.
XXV. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant moved
the High Court in its writ jurisdiction albeit unsuccessfully.
The High Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the
appellant's writ petition and upheld the order of the Tribunal.
Contentions of the Parties
3.
Learned counsel for the appellant, seeking quashing of the impugned
order and the order passed by the Tribunal, vigorously contended that:
I.
Immense gravity of the offence committed by the respondent
was not appreciated either by the High Court or the Tribunal.
Further, the respondent overtly refused to participate in
the second round of disciplinary proceedings; hence, the
respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of his
own wrong.
II.
This Court in Board of Directors Himachal Pradesh
Transport Corporation v. HC Rahi,13 has held that the
12
2013 SCC OnLine All 14267
13
(2008) 11 SCC 502
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
289
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh
principles of natural justice cannot be viewed in a rigid manner.
The application of these principles depends on the facts and
circumstances of each individual case. To sustain the plea of
violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish
how he has been prejudiced by the violation. In the present
case, Respondent was aware of the disciplinary proceedings,
yet, refused to participate in the same. It can be inferred
from the respondent's actions that he had waived any right
to natural justice.
III.
The Tribunal, vide order dt. 23rd January, 2014, in the first
round of litigation, had overruled the respondent's contention
that the entirety of the disciplinary proceedings should be
set aside. However, the respondent chose to raise the same
issues in his letters dated 23rd May, 2014 and 13th June, 2014.
IV.
The second round of enquiry was not a fresh proceeding;
rather, it was a continuation of the disciplinary proceeding
which was initiated in 2006. Additionally, a fresh enquiry
can be initiated against a retired employee within four
years of his retirement under Regulation 351-A of the CSR.
Respondent retired on 31st July, 2010 and the office order
directing resumption of disciplinary proceedings was passed
on 10th April, 2014, which is well within four years of the
respondent's retirement. In any event, the Government, vide
office order dated 16th October 2014, granted sanction under
Regulation 351A of the CSR to continue the proceedings.
In arguendo, even if the non-supply of enquiry report is a
violation of principles of natural justice, it could not have
resulted in quashing of the proceedings per the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL,
Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar.14 It was held therein that in
the event that there is a non-supply of the enquiry report,
the courts and tribunals shall cause the enquiry report to be
furnished to the employee and he be given an opportunity to
make his case. If after hearing the parties, the court comes
to a conclusion that the non-supply has made no difference
to the findings and punishment meted out to the charged
14
(1993) 4 SCC 727
290
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
employee, the court should not interfere with the punishment
order. It was also held that the court should not mechanically
set aside a punishment order on the ground of non-supply of
enquiry report to the charged employee.
V.
The correct procedure per B. Karunakar (supra) has not been
followed by the High Court and, accordingly, the impugned
order ought to be set aside.
4.
Per contra, in support of the impugned order and pressing for dismissal
of the appeal, learned counsel for the respondent assiduously
contended that:
I.
The appellant has tried to mislead this Court by painting
the present case as an instance of non-cooperation of the
respondent whereas, in actuality, the present case is a
demonstration of flagrant violation of the rules. Further, the
appellant has supressed from this Court the fact that the
second round of disciplinary proceedings were conducted in
breach of the timeline provided by the Tribunal.
II.
Rule 7(v) of the 1999 Rules require the disciplinary authority
to provide to the employee, the chargesheet along with the
copy of all documentary evidence mentioned therein. The
appellant has not been able to prove before the Tribunal and
the High Court as well as before this Court that the documents
sought to be relied on in the enquiry were furnished to him.
III.
Moreover, Rule 9(4) of the 1999 Rules mandates that if the
disciplinary authority is of the opinion that punishment is
required to be imposed on the employee, the employee has
to be supplied with the enquiry report and given an opportunity
to make a representation. Admittedly, no copy of the enquiry
report was furnished to the respondent and, therefore, he
had no opportunity to represent thereagainst.
IV.
Surprisingly, not only copy of the enquiry report dated 15th
September, 2014 was not furnished to the respondent, even
the copy of such report was neither placed on record before
the Tribunal as well as before this Court.
V.
The dictum in B. Karunakar (supra), relied upon, does not
apply to the present facts and circumstances. The appellant
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
291
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh
has violated the principles of natural justice as well as the
1999 Rules,
VI.
Finally, the Tribunal and the High Court were bound by
the ruling of the Full bench of the High Court in Abhishek
Prabhakar Awasthy (supra) and, therefore, the proceedings
could not have been carried forward beyond April, 2014
without applying for and obtaining permission to proceed.
Having not concluded the enquiry as per the timeline provided
by the Tribunal, the order of punishment dated is non-est in
law and cannot be given effect. The same was, thus, rightly
interdicted by the Tribunal.
Impugned Order
5.
The High Court took notice of the fact that copy of the enquiry report
had not been furnished to the respondent in the second round of
disciplinary proceedings and this action of the appellant is repugnant
to the provisions contained in Rule 9(4) of the Rules. The High Court
held that the Tribunal's order does not suffer from any infirmity while
holding that the appellant's order dated 24th March 2015 is illegal on
the ground of non-supply of the enquiry report. The High Court also
noticed the fact that the Tribunal's order dated 12th November, 2018
directed the appellant to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within
a time-frame and the appellant failed to do so. Prior to the time-frame
expiring, the appellant should have approached the Tribunal seeking
suitable extension. The conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings
beyond the time-frame fixed by the Tribunal is impermissible in law.
That apart, the order of punishment is also unsustainable as the
same was discriminatory. While the co-charged employee Baliram
was let off and not punished, the respondent was punished for the
same act.
6.
For the reasons thus assigned, the High Court upheld the order of
the Tribunal.
Issues
7.
The present case tasks us to decide the following issues: -
(i)
Whether, in pursuance of a purported enquiry where there
was none to present the case of the department, no witness
292
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was examined in support of the charges and no document
was formally proved, any order of punishment could validly
be made?
(ii)
Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in placing
reliance on a report of enquiry prepared by the Enquiry Officer
who had looked into documents which were not provided to
the respondent and had arrived at findings of guilt only on the
basis of the charge-sheet, the reply thereto of the respondent
and such documents?
(iii) Whether failure or omission or neglect of the disciplinary
authority to furnish the enquiry report had the effect of vitiating
the enquiry?
(iv) Whether the enquiry not having been completed within the
time stipulated by the Tribunal in its order dated 23rd January,
2014, the disciplinary proceedings could have been continued
beyond May, 2014? And
(v)
Whether, and if at all, the appellant should be granted one more
opportunity to conclude the enquiry against the respondent
within the time to be stipulated by us?
Analysis
8.
The first two issues being related are taken up for consideration
together.
9.
There could be no iota of doubt that the enquiry in the present case
was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in clear disregard of the 1999
Rules relating to conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the
employees of the appellant.
10. We are at loss to comprehend as to how, after the first round of
litigation before the Tribunal leading to quashing of the order of
dismissal dated 27th July, 2010, the same mistake could be repeated
by the Enquiry officer by not calling for witnesses to record their
oral statements as well as to prove the documents generated in
course of the preliminary enquiry.