Anil Kumar v. Counsel for

Sri Satish Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner as appointed in the year 2016 on 06.04.2016 as a Constable in U.P. P.A.C. Department, however, a first information report bearing number "376 of 2017", under Sections 328, 376, 506 IPC was lodged against the petitioner on 12.12.2017, and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.04.2018. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Asstt. Commandant, 41st Bn. P.A.C. Ghaziabad and a preliminary enquiry report came to be submitted on

17.05.2018. Thereafter a charge sheet came to be issued on 30.08.2018 against the writ petitioner purported to be under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,

1991. Thereafter on 24.09.2018, the suspension order was revoked and petitioner was reinstated in service and thereafter post-appointment of an Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report dated

09.10.2018 holding the writ petitioner to be guilty of the said charges and proposing the punishment of dismissal as per Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,

1991. Post issuance of the enquiry report, a show cause notice came to be 2 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019 issued on 25.10.2018, requiring the writ petitioner to submit his reply to which the writ petitioner-delinquent submitted his reply on 05.11.2018 and on 24.01.2019, an order came to be passed by the Commandant, 41st Bn. P.A.C. Ghaziabad/ fourth respondent, dismissing the petitioner from services against which the writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on

11.02.2019, which was dismissed on 30.04.2019 on the ground of laches against which the writ petitioner preferred Statutory Revision under Section 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 before the Revisional Authority, which was rejected on

13.08.2019 by the second respondent/ Inspector General, P.A.C. Western Zone, Moradabad.

4. Questioning the said orders, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner has not committed any misconduct so as to warrant issuance of charge sheet and conduction of the departmental proceedings culminating into the impugned order, particularly when the writ petitioner himself stood acquitted by the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad on

16.07.2019 in Crl. Case No.376 of 2017, under Sections 328, 376, 506 IPC. Further submission is that the entire disciplinary proceeding stood conducted against the writ petitioner behind the back in utter violation of the provisions contained under the 1991 Rules. However, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the core and fundamental issue which goes to the root of the matter, which vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings is the fact that the enquiry officer in his enquiry report dated 09.10.2018 had not only proceeded to hold the writ petitioner guilty of the said charges, however, it has also proposed the punishment of dismissal in view of the provisions contained under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of 1991 Rules. Submission of learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that it is not within the domain of the enquiry officer to propose punishment as what the enquiry officer is to do is to just give its finding whether the allegations in the form of charges in the charge sheet stands proved or not and rest is to be done by the Disciplinary Authority while exercising its discretion in that regard. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 236 as well as the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.19952 of 2019, Mohammad 3 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019 Miyan vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 21.08.2025. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order impugned be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law.

6. Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the enquiry proceedings have been conducted as per the Rules and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that due opportunity was accorded to the writ petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding and the Enquiry Officer after finding the charges to be proved, had submitted his enquiry report, however, he submits that it is not within the domain of the enquiry officer to propose punishment.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Apparently, the writ petitioner was charge sheeted on 30.08.2018. A preliminary enquiry was set up followed by a regular enquiry and on

09.10.2018, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report holding the writ petitioner/delinquent to be guilty while observing as under:- "सम्पूणर् िवभागीय कायर्वाही के दौरान प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध सभी साष्यों के बयानात एं व अिभलेखों की गहन समी्षा से पाया िक आरोपी आर्षी - 51795 / 160710506 अिनल कु मार के िवरू्ध ्शीमित िपकी ्षारा थाना-पहासू जनपद-बुलन्दशहर में मु0अ0स0-376/17 धारा-328,376,506 भा0द0िव0 के अन्तगर्त पंजीकृ त कराये जाने एवं िववेचक ्षारा िववेचना में लगाये गये आरोपों का सही पाये गये है। उ्व आरोपी आर्षी इस पंजीकृ त मुकदमें में जेल में भी िनरू्ध रहा है। आरोपी आर्षी का यह कृ त्य अपने कतर््ि के ्ऺित घोर लापरवाही, अनुशासनहीनता व गम्भीर Moral Turpitude की ्शेणी में है एवं स्वेच्छाचािरता का ्योतक है। िजसके िलये मैं आर्षी - 51795/160710506 अिनल कु मार, डी दल को दोषी पाता हॅ ू। अतः मैं पीठासीन अिधकारी आरोपी आर्षी - 51795 / 160710506 अिनल कु मार, डी दल को उपरो्व कृ त्य के िलये उ०्ऺ० अिधनस्थ ्शेणी के पुिलस अिधकािरयों की (दण्ड एं व अपील) िनयमावली 1991 के िनयम 14 (1) के अन्तगर्त िवभागीय कायर्वाही के िनयम 14 ( 1 ) के अन्तगर्त िवभागीय कायर्वाही के िनयम 4(1) के खण्ड 'क' में विणत दीघर् दण्ड (एक) के अन्तर्गत सेवा से पदच्युित िकये जाने की संस्तुित की जाती है। यह आदेश सेनानायक 41वी वािहनी पीएसी गािजयाबाद की सहमित के उपरान्त लागू होगें" 4 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019

9. The Disciplinary Authority based on the enquiry report, agreeing with the same had proceeded to pass order dated 24.01.2019 dismissing the writ petitioner from service, against which an appeal came to be preferred which was rejected on 30.04.2019 and a revision on 13.08.2019. As a matter of fact, the services of the petitioner are governed under the provisions of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 14 reads as under: - "14(1) Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings- (1) subject to the provisions contained in these rules, the departmental proceedings in the case referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 5 against to the police officers May br conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in appendix- I "

10. Appendix -1 pertains to the procedure relating to conduct of departmental proceedings against police officer reads as under:- "APPENDIX-1 PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POLICE OFFICER Upon institution of a formal enquiry such police officer against whom the enquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form I appended to these Rules which shall be communicated to the charged police officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged police officer of the facts and circumstances against him, he shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in, in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry Officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry Officer considers necessary. The charged police officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish: Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding 5 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019 the punishment to be imposed on the charged police officer."

11. A close reading of the enquiry report would reveal that the enquiry officer in the zeal of proving the charges against the delinquent employee had exceeded its jurisdiction while proposing punishment, that too by referring to the specific provisions contained under the 1991 Rules, i.e. Rule 4(1)(a)(i). Certainly, the task which has been assigned to the Enquiry Officer is to conduct enquiry proceedings while recording its finding whether the charges are proved or not against the delinquent employee and it is the prerogative and jurisdiction while exercising discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to pass punishment order if there are variety of punishments provided in the Rules. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: - "18. ... 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."

12. Further in Mohammad Miyan (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "14. It is well settled principle of law that when statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner alone (Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University and others (2022) 8 SCC 713).

15. In such above view of the matter, the enquiry officer's recommendation of the preposed punishment from dismissal of service as well as denial of salary on principle of 'No Work No Pay' cannot be approved of. The report also deserves to be set aside and so also consequential order of dismissal of the petitioner and so also the order passed by the appellate authority and order of authority sitting in revision also deserve to be set aside."

13. Since the said discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, which vitiates the entire proceedings, thus in the opinion of the Court, it is not justified or justifiable for the enquiry officer to propose punishment in that regard.

14. Thus writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 24.01.2019,

30.04.2019 and 13.08.2019 are hereby quashed. 6 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019

15. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to get the enquiry report in the matter afresh by appointing enquiry officer other than officer who had previously held, the enquiry within two weeks of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be participating in the enquiry. The enquiry shall start from the stage of reply already submitted by petitioner and enquiry report shall be submitted within a maximum period of two months from the date of appointment of enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority, thereafter shall proceed to take appropriate decision in the matter within a further period of one month in compliance of principles of natural justice. The status of the petitioner in the meanwhile shall continue to remain the same as was at the time of passing of order of punishment by the disciplinary authority. October 8, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sri Satish Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner as appointed in the year 2016 on 06.04.2016 as a Constable in U.P. P.A.C. Department, however, a first information report bearing number "376 of 2017", under Sections 328, 376, 506 IPC was lodged against the petitioner on 12.12.2017, and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.04.2018. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Asstt. Commandant, 41st Bn. P.A.C. Ghaziabad and a preliminary enquiry report came to be submitted on

17.05.2018. Thereafter a charge sheet came to be issued on 30.08.2018 against the writ petitioner purported to be under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,

1991. Thereafter on 24.09.2018, the suspension order was revoked and petitioner was reinstated in service and thereafter post-appointment of an Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report dated

09.10.2018 holding the writ petitioner to be guilty of the said charges and proposing the punishment of dismissal as per Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,

1991. Post issuance of the enquiry report, a show cause notice came to be 2 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019 issued on 25.10.2018, requiring the writ petitioner to submit his reply to which the writ petitioner-delinquent submitted his reply on 05.11.2018 and on 24.01.2019, an order came to be passed by the Commandant, 41st Bn. P.A.C. Ghaziabad/ fourth respondent, dismissing the petitioner from services against which the writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on

11.02.2019, which was dismissed on 30.04.2019 on the ground of laches against which the writ petitioner preferred Statutory Revision under Section 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 before the Revisional Authority, which was rejected on

13.08.2019 by the second respondent/ Inspector General, P.A.C. Western Zone, Moradabad.

4. Questioning the said orders, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner has not committed any misconduct so as to warrant issuance of charge sheet and conduction of the departmental proceedings culminating into the impugned order, particularly when the writ petitioner himself stood acquitted by the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad on

16.07.2019 in Crl. Case No.376 of 2017, under Sections 328, 376, 506 IPC. Further submission is that the entire disciplinary proceeding stood conducted against the writ petitioner behind the back in utter violation of the provisions contained under the 1991 Rules. However, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the core and fundamental issue which goes to the root of the matter, which vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings is the fact that the enquiry officer in his enquiry report dated 09.10.2018 had not only proceeded to hold the writ petitioner guilty of the said charges, however, it has also proposed the punishment of dismissal in view of the provisions contained under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of 1991 Rules. Submission of learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that it is not within the domain of the enquiry officer to propose punishment as what the enquiry officer is to do is to just give its finding whether the allegations in the form of charges in the charge sheet stands proved or not and rest is to be done by the Disciplinary Authority while exercising its discretion in that regard. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 236 as well as the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.19952 of 2019, Mohammad 3 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019 Miyan vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 21.08.2025. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order impugned be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law.

6. Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the enquiry proceedings have been conducted as per the Rules and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that due opportunity was accorded to the writ petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding and the Enquiry Officer after finding the charges to be proved, had submitted his enquiry report, however, he submits that it is not within the domain of the enquiry officer to propose punishment.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Apparently, the writ petitioner was charge sheeted on 30.08.2018. A preliminary enquiry was set up followed by a regular enquiry and on

09.10.2018, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report holding the writ petitioner/delinquent to be guilty while observing as under:- "सम्पूणर् िवभागीय कायर्वाही के दौरान प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध सभी साष्यों के बयानात एं व अिभलेखों की गहन समी्षा से पाया िक आरोपी आर्षी - 51795 / 160710506 अिनल कु मार के िवरू्ध ्शीमित िपकी ्षारा थाना-पहासू जनपद-बुलन्दशहर में मु0अ0स0-376/17 धारा-328,376,506 भा0द0िव0 के अन्तगर्त पंजीकृ त कराये जाने एवं िववेचक ्षारा िववेचना में लगाये गये आरोपों का सही पाये गये है। उ्व आरोपी आर्षी इस पंजीकृ त मुकदमें में जेल में भी िनरू्ध रहा है। आरोपी आर्षी का यह कृ त्य अपने कतर््ि के ्ऺित घोर लापरवाही, अनुशासनहीनता व गम्भीर Moral Turpitude की ्शेणी में है एवं स्वेच्छाचािरता का ्योतक है। िजसके िलये मैं आर्षी - 51795/160710506 अिनल कु मार, डी दल को दोषी पाता हॅ ू। अतः मैं पीठासीन अिधकारी आरोपी आर्षी - 51795 / 160710506 अिनल कु मार, डी दल को उपरो्व कृ त्य के िलये उ०्ऺ० अिधनस्थ ्शेणी के पुिलस अिधकािरयों की (दण्ड एं व अपील) िनयमावली 1991 के िनयम 14 (1) के अन्तगर्त िवभागीय कायर्वाही के िनयम 14 ( 1 ) के अन्तगर्त िवभागीय कायर्वाही के िनयम 4(1) के खण्ड 'क' में विणत दीघर् दण्ड (एक) के अन्तर्गत सेवा से पदच्युित िकये जाने की संस्तुित की जाती है। यह आदेश सेनानायक 41वी वािहनी पीएसी गािजयाबाद की सहमित के उपरान्त लागू होगें" 4 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019

9. The Disciplinary Authority based on the enquiry report, agreeing with the same had proceeded to pass order dated 24.01.2019 dismissing the writ petitioner from service, against which an appeal came to be preferred which was rejected on 30.04.2019 and a revision on 13.08.2019. As a matter of fact, the services of the petitioner are governed under the provisions of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 14 reads as under: - "14(1) Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings- (1) subject to the provisions contained in these rules, the departmental proceedings in the case referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 5 against to the police officers May br conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in appendix- I "

10. Appendix -1 pertains to the procedure relating to conduct of departmental proceedings against police officer reads as under:- "APPENDIX-1 PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POLICE OFFICER Upon institution of a formal enquiry such police officer against whom the enquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form I appended to these Rules which shall be communicated to the charged police officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged police officer of the facts and circumstances against him, he shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in, in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry Officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry Officer considers necessary. The charged police officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish: Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding 5 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019 the punishment to be imposed on the charged police officer."

11. A close reading of the enquiry report would reveal that the enquiry officer in the zeal of proving the charges against the delinquent employee had exceeded its jurisdiction while proposing punishment, that too by referring to the specific provisions contained under the 1991 Rules, i.e. Rule 4(1)(a)(i). Certainly, the task which has been assigned to the Enquiry Officer is to conduct enquiry proceedings while recording its finding whether the charges are proved or not against the delinquent employee and it is the prerogative and jurisdiction while exercising discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to pass punishment order if there are variety of punishments provided in the Rules. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: - "18. ... 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."

12. Further in Mohammad Miyan (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "14. It is well settled principle of law that when statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner alone (Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University and others (2022) 8 SCC 713).

15. In such above view of the matter, the enquiry officer's recommendation of the preposed punishment from dismissal of service as well as denial of salary on principle of 'No Work No Pay' cannot be approved of. The report also deserves to be set aside and so also consequential order of dismissal of the petitioner and so also the order passed by the appellate authority and order of authority sitting in revision also deserve to be set aside."

13. Since the said discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, which vitiates the entire proceedings, thus in the opinion of the Court, it is not justified or justifiable for the enquiry officer to propose punishment in that regard.

14. Thus writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 24.01.2019,

30.04.2019 and 13.08.2019 are hereby quashed. 6 WRIA No. 14449 of 2019

15. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to get the enquiry report in the matter afresh by appointing enquiry officer other than officer who had previously held, the enquiry within two weeks of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be participating in the enquiry. The enquiry shall start from the stage of reply already submitted by petitioner and enquiry report shall be submitted within a maximum period of two months from the date of appointment of enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority, thereafter shall proceed to take appropriate decision in the matter within a further period of one month in compliance of principles of natural justice. The status of the petitioner in the meanwhile shall continue to remain the same as was at the time of passing of order of punishment by the disciplinary authority. October 8, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad