U.P. (Writ - A No.- 10177 of 2019) decided on 9th October & Ors. v. Managing Director & Anr.

for major penalty. This Court in the case of Kishor Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (Writ - A No.- 10177 of 2019) decided on 9th October, 2023 has held vide paragraph 12 thus: "12. In my above view, I find support in the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari vs. State of UP & ors; 2008 (4) ADJ 58, wherein the Bench has relied upon an earlier division bench judgment in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director & anr, MANU/UP/0757/1999 in which it was held that imposition of penalty in the nature of major penalty without holding inquiry was bad. The said judgment came to be affirmed by Supreme Court in SLP as the SLP against the judgment stood dismissed on 16.08.2000. Citing the aforesaid judgment and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP & anr vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava; 1997 (1) LLJ 831, the Division Bench in the case of Salahuddin Ansari (supra) vide paragraphs 11, 13 and 14, held thus: "11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541, considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is 4 WRIA No. 795 of 2025 held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills & others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal & others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 06.05.2005.

13. The aforesaid exposition of law makes it clear that the delinquent employee has a right to defend himself at different stages. When the charge sheet is served upon him, he has a right to submit his reply and in case he does not submit reply, that itself would not amount to admission of guilt or that the charge stand proved. If the allegations are serious and may result in major penalty, the disciplinary authority may appoint Inquiry Officer. Such Inquiry Officer, thereafter would have to fix a date for oral evidence. At this stage the delinquent employee has a right to participate in the oral inquiry, examine witnesses, if produced by the department, and after the evidence of the department is completed, the delinquent employee may produce evidence in his defence. During the course of oral inquiry, the delinquent employee has right to participate at every stage and date and if there is any failure in participation on one or more occasions, the Inquiry Officer cannot deny him participation from the subsequent stage. The delinquent employee can participate at subsequent other stage also. The Inquiry Officer, after completion of oral inquiry, will submit its report after discussing the entire material and if any charge is proved, the disciplinary authority shall supply a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee and he would again have a right to submit reply to the inquiry report.

14. Non holding of oral inquiry, therefore, is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment."

9. Thus a disciplinary proceeding qua charges that may invite major penalty, in the absence of oral inquiry is per se bad and, therefore, any consequential action pursuant thereto is liable to be held void ab initio. In other words, the Courts hold that in the matters where the rule contemplates full fledged inquiry inclusive of oral inquiry even in the cases where the replies to the chargesheet have not been submitted, it is imperative on the part of the inquiry officer to hold oral enquiry and, therefore, in the absence of oral 5 WRIA No. 795 of 2025 enquiry, inquiry report if submitted, it deserves to be quashed and so also the resultant action. In the case of Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, the Supreme Court vide paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 has held thus: "13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank