High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal from service dated 10th January, 2025 on the ground that enquiry report itself was vitiated because enquiry officer himself made recommendation of the propose punishment. It is argued that settled proposition of law that enquiry officer is only to hold enquiry and indict the delinquent employee and it is always left for the disciplinary authority to proceed on the basis of fact finding enquiry report, thus enquiry officer has no business to propose punishment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a division bench judgment in the case of case of Mohd. Haneef Khan v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home in Service Bench No. 314 of 2010 decided on 3.4.2017 in which the Court has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Others v. Kharak Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 236. Vide paragraph 13,14 and 15 of the judgment of division bench, the Court has held thus: 13) Another infirmity in the report of the enquiry officer is that he concluded the enquiry holding that all the charges have been proved and he recommended for dismissal of the delinquent from service. The last paragraph of his report dated 16.11.1985 reads as under:- "During the course of above inquiry, such facts have come into light from which it is proved that the employee who has doubtful character and does not obey the order, does not have the right to continue in the government service and it is recommended to dismiss him from the service with immediate effect." (emphasis supplied) Though there is no specific bar in offering views by the enquiry officer, in the case on hand, the enquiry officer exceeded his limit by saying that the officer has no right to continue in the government service and he has to be dismissed from service with immediate effect. As pointed out above, awarding appropriate punishment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the punishing /disciplinary authority and it depends upon the nature and gravity of the proved charge/charges and other attended circumstances. It is clear from the materials, the officer, who inspected and noted the shortfall of trees, himself conducted the enquiry, arrived at a conclusion holding the charges proved and also strongly recommended severe punishment of dismissal from service. The entire action and the course adopted by the enquiry officer cannot be accepted and is contrary to the well-known principles enunciated by this Court. 14) A reading of the enquiry report also shows that the respondent herein was not furnished with the required documents. The department's witnesses were not examined in his presence. Though the respondent who was the writ petitioner specifically stated so in the affidavit before the High Court in the writ proceedings, those averments were specifically controverted in the reply affidavit filed by the department. Mere denial for the sake of denial is not an answer to the specific allegations made in the affidavit. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that after submission of the report by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority, the respondent herein was furnished with the copy of the said report along with all the relied upon documents. When all these infirmities were specifically pleaded and brought to the notice of the appellate authority (i.e. Forest Conservator), he rejected the same but has not pointed the relevant materials from the records of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority to support his decision. Hence, the appellate authority has also committed an error in dismissing the appeal of the respondent. 15) After taking note of all the infirmities and in the light of the various principles enunciated by this Court, the High Court has rightly interfered and quashed the orders dated 05.03.1986 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani as well as order dated 27.04.1991 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Nainital. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999 do not provide for any such power to be vested with the enquiry officer to make recommendation qua punishment which lies in the discretion of disciplinary authority. The aforesaid division bench has considered the rules Rule 41 of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 6.8.2008. The said order came to be set aside vide judgment and order dated 5.7.2023 passed in Writ A No. 43029 of 2008 and consequently petitioner came to be reinstated on 09.4.2024. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the legal position as referred to hereinabove and submits that the matter may be remitted to the respondent no. 2/ disciplinary authority to proceed with the stage of enquiry and get the report from the enquiry officer afresh and thereof take action. In view of aforesaid, this petition stands allowed. The order dated 20.01.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2/ disciplinary authority to proceed with the stage of enquiry and get the report from the enquiry officer afresh and thereafter take action. Status of petitioner would continue as was there at the time of passing of order of punishment of dismissal from service. Appropriate order shall be passed by the disciplinary authority, namely respondent no. 2 within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be permitted to participate in enquiry as directed hereinabove. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Sanjeev SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal from service dated 10th January, 2025 on the ground that enquiry report itself was vitiated because enquiry officer himself made recommendation of the propose punishment. It is argued that settled proposition of law that enquiry officer is only to hold enquiry and indict the delinquent employee and it is always left for the disciplinary authority to proceed on the basis of fact finding enquiry report, thus enquiry officer has no business to propose punishment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a division bench judgment in the case of case of Mohd. Haneef Khan v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home in Service Bench No. 314 of 2010 decided on 3.4.2017 in which the Court has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Others v. Kharak Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 236. Vide paragraph 13,14 and 15 of the judgment of division bench, the Court has held thus: 13) Another infirmity in the report of the enquiry officer is that he concluded the enquiry holding that all the charges have been proved and he recommended for dismissal of the delinquent from service. The last paragraph of his report dated 16.11.1985 reads as under:- "During the course of above inquiry, such facts have come into light from which it is proved that the employee who has doubtful character and does not obey the order, does not have the right to continue in the government service and it is recommended to dismiss him from the service with immediate effect." (emphasis supplied) Though there is no specific bar in offering views by the enquiry officer, in the case on hand, the enquiry officer exceeded his limit by saying that the officer has no right to continue in the government service and he has to be dismissed from service with immediate effect. As pointed out above, awarding appropriate punishment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the punishing /disciplinary authority and it depends upon the nature and gravity of the proved charge/charges and other attended circumstances. It is clear from the materials, the officer, who inspected and noted the shortfall of trees, himself conducted the enquiry, arrived at a conclusion holding the charges proved and also strongly recommended severe punishment of dismissal from service. The entire action and the course adopted by the enquiry officer cannot be accepted and is contrary to the well-known principles enunciated by this Court. 14) A reading of the enquiry report also shows that the respondent herein was not furnished with the required documents. The department's witnesses were not examined in his presence. Though the respondent who was the writ petitioner specifically stated so in the affidavit before the High Court in the writ proceedings, those averments were specifically controverted in the reply affidavit filed by the department. Mere denial for the sake of denial is not an answer to the specific allegations made in the affidavit. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that after submission of the report by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority, the respondent herein was furnished with the copy of the said report along with all the relied upon documents. When all these infirmities were specifically pleaded and brought to the notice of the appellate authority (i.e. Forest Conservator), he rejected the same but has not pointed the relevant materials from the records of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority to support his decision. Hence, the appellate authority has also committed an error in dismissing the appeal of the respondent. 15) After taking note of all the infirmities and in the light of the various principles enunciated by this Court, the High Court has rightly interfered and quashed the orders dated 05.03.1986 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani as well as order dated 27.04.1991 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Nainital. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999 do not provide for any such power to be vested with the enquiry officer to make recommendation qua punishment which lies in the discretion of disciplinary authority. The aforesaid division bench has considered the rules Rule 41 of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 6.8.2008. The said order came to be set aside vide judgment and order dated 5.7.2023 passed in Writ A No. 43029 of 2008 and consequently petitioner came to be reinstated on 09.4.2024. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the legal position as referred to hereinabove and submits that the matter may be remitted to the respondent no. 2/ disciplinary authority to proceed with the stage of enquiry and get the report from the enquiry officer afresh and thereof take action. In view of aforesaid, this petition stands allowed. The order dated 20.01.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2/ disciplinary authority to proceed with the stage of enquiry and get the report from the enquiry officer afresh and thereafter take action. Status of petitioner would continue as was there at the time of passing of order of punishment of dismissal from service. Appropriate order shall be passed by the disciplinary authority, namely respondent no. 2 within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be permitted to participate in enquiry as directed hereinabove. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Sanjeev SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad