Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for respondent.

2. In the present case, the petitioner was served with the charge- sheet. He has made a reply to itand has participated in the inquiry process. Thereafter an inquiry report dated 21.08.2025 was submitted to Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, admittedly has not issued any show-cause notice as well as a copy of inquiry report was also not submitted to the petitioner and still on basis of inquiry report, an order of punishment of is termination was passed. The Disciplinary Authority has noted that allegations were serious i.e. petitioner was involved.

3. In the present case, 'penalty and disciplinary action' against petitioner are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Sugar Mills and Distilleries Employees Service Regulations, 2015 and its Regulation 60 Sub-clause 1 (c) provides disciplinary action. For reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :- "If any explanation in relation to the charge-sheet is not received or the given explanation has not been found satisfactory then the Appointing Authority may pass suitable orders." 2 WRIA No. 14412 of 2025

5. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that no copy of inquiry report was submitted as well as no show-cause notice was issued by Disciplinary Authority and impugned punishment order was passed and as such, principles of natural justice were violated.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that Regulation 60 of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Sugar Mills and Distilleries Employees Service Regulations, 2015 does not provide a procedure that after inquiry report, the petitioner is required to be heard and Disciplinary Authority has a power to pass an order of punishment on basis of inquiry report.

7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. If the Regulation 60 of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Sugar Mills and Distilleries Employees Service Regulations, 2015 is strictly interpreted, the Disciplinary Authority could pass an order at the back of incumbent employer and a major punishment could be passed. The law in regard to service jurisprudence is being developed and there are catena of judgments passed by Supreme Court, wherein principles of natural justice is being interpreted to the extent that its substantial adherence is now mandatory at least, an incumbent be heard before minor/major punishment is awarded. issue show-cause notice

8. It may be a case that there was no requirement for the Disciplinary Authority petitioner along with a copy of charge-sheet, however, the Court is of opinion as also held in judgments passed by Supreme Court that principles of natural justice are required to be substantially followed.

9. This Principle is recently retreated by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh: 2025 INSC 555. The relevant paragraph Nos.44, 45 and 46 are reproduced hereinafter :- "44. To recapitulate, B. Karunakar (supra) has unequivocally held that non-furnishing of the enquiry report would deprive the employee of the opportunity and disable him to demonstrate before the disciplinary authority the perversity in such report by filing a representation. The object that is sought to be achieved by furnishing of the enquiry report is this. If the report were furnished, the delinquent employee could persuade the disciplinary 3 WRIA No. 14412 of 2025 authority to hold that either he is innocent and/or that he does not deserve any punishment, or may be let off with a minor punishment. Providing a delinquent employee with an opportunity to respond to the enquiry report is, thus, a crucial procedural step that must precede disciplinary action. Failure to do so, such as imposing punishment without furnishing the report, could severely handicap the employee's ability to effectively question or challenge the decision in an appeal/appropriate proceedings, as he would be unaware of the materials against him. In such a case, at best, nothing more than a plain and simple plea can be urged that non-furnishing of the enquiry report has deprived him of reasonable opportunity to counter the findings of guilt without, however, he being able to demonstrate prejudice. It is axiomatic that without reading the enquiry report, there cannot be an effective and meaningful challenge to the findings contained therein.

45. That apart, the right to receive the report of enquiry being available prior to a final decision being taken in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be postponed by any arbitrary act of the employer in not following the law, which can be or should be validated by the court, and what was intended to be a pre-decisional opportunity cannot be made to partake the character of a post-decisional opportunity.

46. Imagine a scenario where the employer seeking to get rid of an inconvenient employee succeeds in its endeavour and dismisses him following an enquiry, flawed in itself, by relying on the report of enquiry without furnishing copy of the same to him. In such an eventuality, the dismissed employee while approaching a tribunal/court for redress has to do so without having access to the materials considered in the report. This is best exemplified by the present case where the report of enquiry has neither been furnished to the respondent nor placed on record before all the adjudicatory fora. In the absence of such access, can the delinquent employee be expected to demonstrate prejudice suffered by him? We are not sure how the burden can be discharged by the employee in such a case. This lack of access to the report would severely hamper the ability of the employee to demonstrate 'prejudice' and to build a strong case for succeeding in his challenge to the order of punishment. Besides, the lengthy legal process could be agonizing, and 4 WRIA No. 14412 of 2025 especially without any earning, may not only lead to financial strain and diminished resolve but could eventually end up with the employee abandoning the challenge. Drawing from experience, we understand how employers take advantage and employ methods to drag on proceedings for years and thereby ensure that through the process of 'wear and tear', the employee (if he has been either dismissed or removed from service) loses steam and, inevitably, lacking interest in the challenge effectively gets thrown out of the legal arena by forces beyond his control."

10. Therefore, impugned order is interfered and it is directed that respondent will serve a copy of inquiry report along with show- cause notice, thereafter the petitioner will submit a reply within three weeks and subsequently disciplinary proceedings be concluded expeditiously.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court finds that despite there was an alternative of filing statutory appeal, however, since there are violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, petitioner has rightly approached this Court at the first instance.

12. An attempt made by learned counsel for petitioner that since the Court has interfered with the impugned order and petitioner has already retired, therefore, to continue disciplinary inquiry now a permission has to be taken in terms of Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations, however, the Court is of opinion that since this Court has interfered with the impugned order and that disciplinary proceedings were already initiated before petitioner got retired, therefore, there is no requirement that respondent will now take permission under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations.

13. Impugned Order is set aside and with above referred directions, this writ petition is disposed of. September 23, 2025 P. Pandey (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for respondent.

2. In the present case, the petitioner was served with the charge- sheet. He has made a reply to itand has participated in the inquiry process. Thereafter an inquiry report dated 21.08.2025 was submitted to Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, admittedly has not issued any show-cause notice as well as a copy of inquiry report was also not submitted to the petitioner and still on basis of inquiry report, an order of punishment of is termination was passed. The Disciplinary Authority has noted that allegations were serious i.e. petitioner was involved.

3. In the present case, 'penalty and disciplinary action' against petitioner are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Sugar Mills and Distilleries Employees Service Regulations, 2015 and its Regulation 60 Sub-clause 1 (c) provides disciplinary action. For reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :- "If any explanation in relation to the charge-sheet is not received or the given explanation has not been found satisfactory then the Appointing Authority may pass suitable orders." 2 WRIA No. 14412 of 2025

5. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that no copy of inquiry report was submitted as well as no show-cause notice was issued by Disciplinary Authority and impugned punishment order was passed and as such, principles of natural justice were violated.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that Regulation 60 of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Sugar Mills and Distilleries Employees Service Regulations, 2015 does not provide a procedure that after inquiry report, the petitioner is required to be heard and Disciplinary Authority has a power to pass an order of punishment on basis of inquiry report.

7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. If the Regulation 60 of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Sugar Mills and Distilleries Employees Service Regulations, 2015 is strictly interpreted, the Disciplinary Authority could pass an order at the back of incumbent employer and a major punishment could be passed. The law in regard to service jurisprudence is being developed and there are catena of judgments passed by Supreme Court, wherein principles of natural justice is being interpreted to the extent that its substantial adherence is now mandatory at least, an incumbent be heard before minor/major punishment is awarded. issue show-cause notice

8. It may be a case that there was no requirement for the Disciplinary Authority petitioner along with a copy of charge-sheet, however, the Court is of opinion as also held in judgments passed by Supreme Court that principles of natural justice are required to be substantially followed.

9. This Principle is recently retreated by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh: 2025 INSC 555. The relevant paragraph Nos.44, 45 and 46 are reproduced hereinafter :- "44. To recapitulate, B. Karunakar (supra) has unequivocally held that non-furnishing of the enquiry report would deprive the employee of the opportunity and disable him to demonstrate before the disciplinary authority the perversity in such report by filing a representation. The object that is sought to be achieved by furnishing of the enquiry report is this. If the report were furnished, the delinquent employee could persuade the disciplinary 3 WRIA No. 14412 of 2025 authority to hold that either he is innocent and/or that he does not deserve any punishment, or may be let off with a minor punishment. Providing a delinquent employee with an opportunity to respond to the enquiry report is, thus, a crucial procedural step that must precede disciplinary action. Failure to do so, such as imposing punishment without furnishing the report, could severely handicap the employee's ability to effectively question or challenge the decision in an appeal/appropriate proceedings, as he would be unaware of the materials against him. In such a case, at best, nothing more than a plain and simple plea can be urged that non-furnishing of the enquiry report has deprived him of reasonable opportunity to counter the findings of guilt without, however, he being able to demonstrate prejudice. It is axiomatic that without reading the enquiry report, there cannot be an effective and meaningful challenge to the findings contained therein.

45. That apart, the right to receive the report of enquiry being available prior to a final decision being taken in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be postponed by any arbitrary act of the employer in not following the law, which can be or should be validated by the court, and what was intended to be a pre-decisional opportunity cannot be made to partake the character of a post-decisional opportunity.

46. Imagine a scenario where the employer seeking to get rid of an inconvenient employee succeeds in its endeavour and dismisses him following an enquiry, flawed in itself, by relying on the report of enquiry without furnishing copy of the same to him. In such an eventuality, the dismissed employee while approaching a tribunal/court for redress has to do so without having access to the materials considered in the report. This is best exemplified by the present case where the report of enquiry has neither been furnished to the respondent nor placed on record before all the adjudicatory fora. In the absence of such access, can the delinquent employee be expected to demonstrate prejudice suffered by him? We are not sure how the burden can be discharged by the employee in such a case. This lack of access to the report would severely hamper the ability of the employee to demonstrate 'prejudice' and to build a strong case for succeeding in his challenge to the order of punishment. Besides, the lengthy legal process could be agonizing, and 4 WRIA No. 14412 of 2025 especially without any earning, may not only lead to financial strain and diminished resolve but could eventually end up with the employee abandoning the challenge. Drawing from experience, we understand how employers take advantage and employ methods to drag on proceedings for years and thereby ensure that through the process of 'wear and tear', the employee (if he has been either dismissed or removed from service) loses steam and, inevitably, lacking interest in the challenge effectively gets thrown out of the legal arena by forces beyond his control."

10. Therefore, impugned order is interfered and it is directed that respondent will serve a copy of inquiry report along with show- cause notice, thereafter the petitioner will submit a reply within three weeks and subsequently disciplinary proceedings be concluded expeditiously.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court finds that despite there was an alternative of filing statutory appeal, however, since there are violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, petitioner has rightly approached this Court at the first instance.

12. An attempt made by learned counsel for petitioner that since the Court has interfered with the impugned order and petitioner has already retired, therefore, to continue disciplinary inquiry now a permission has to be taken in terms of Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations, however, the Court is of opinion that since this Court has interfered with the impugned order and that disciplinary proceedings were already initiated before petitioner got retired, therefore, there is no requirement that respondent will now take permission under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations.

13. Impugned Order is set aside and with above referred directions, this writ petition is disposed of. September 23, 2025 P. Pandey (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)