Shrawan Kumar v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Shiv Kant Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Pal, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner is that while writ petitioner was working as Samaj Kalyan Supervisor, a chargesheet came to be served upon the writ petitioner on 16.06.2009 with an allegation that the writ petitioner during the period of is posting from 2004-05 to 2008-09 had committed certain irregularities, pursuant whereto the State suffered loss while posted as Samaj Kalyan Supervisor. The writ petitioner responded to the chargesheet while submitting an objection and being not satisfied with the reply/ objection submitted by the writ petitioner to the chargesheet, the inquiry officer was appointed, tendered inquiry report dated 20.06.2011 exonerating the writ petitioner from the said charges. Thereafter on

16.03.2012, the Director of Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh, second respondent proceeded to issue a show cause notice disagreeing with the finding of the inquiry officer requiring the writ petitioner, delinquent employee to submit its response/ objection to the disagreement note as incorporated in the show cause notice. The writ petitioner on 09.04.2012 submitted a reply wherein he came up with the stand that he is nothing to say except reliance has been placed upon the inquiry report thereafter the order impugned dated 2 WRIA No. 53866 of 2014

03.08.2012 came to be passed by the Director of Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh withholding of three increments with cumulative effect.

4. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition.

5. This Court entertained the writ petition and sought response from the State to which a counter affidavit came to be filed by the State sworn by District Social Welfare Officer, Prayagraj dated 17.07.2019 to which a rejoinder affidavit was also filed which is available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order impugned imposing punishment passed by the Director of Samaj Kalyan cannot be sustained for the simple reason that once post issuance of a chargesheet, an inquiry officer stood appointed who conducted the inquiry and exonerated the writ petitioner/ delinquent employee and the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the inquiry report disagreed with the finding contained therein and issue a show cause notice which stood replied by the writ petitioner with the stand that he has nothing to say except reliance has been placed upon the inquiry report then it was obligatory upon the disciplinary authority to have recorded the reasons in coming to the conclusion that the charges stood proved while recording reasons. He submits that the disciplinary authority has though passed an order which is virtually in three paragraphs, first paragraph is dedicated towards the fact, second paragraph is also dedicated towards the reply to the show cause notice but the third paragraph which shows the conclusion which does not contain any reasons in coming to the conclusion as to why the charges stood proved against the writ petitioner by the disciplinary authority despite the fact that inquiry report was in favour of the writ petitioner. He thus submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

7. Shri S.K. Pal, learned Standing Counsel submits that it is the prerogative and the domain of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the finding of the inquiry officer which has been done, however, according to him, a discrepancy stood crept in order as there are no reasons in coming to the conclusion how the charges stood proved against the writ petitioner post disagreement. He thus submits that the impugned order be set aside and the 3 WRIA No. 53866 of 2014 matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

9. The facts are not in issue. The chargesheet came to be served upon the writ petitioner which was replied by the writ petitioner thereafter an inquiry officer tendered his inquiry report on 20.06.2011 exonerating the writ petitioner thereafter the show cause notice containing disagreement was issued by the disciplinary authority on 16.03.2012 and the writ petitioner submitted his reply mentioning therein that he has nothing to say except the fact that he relies upon the inquiry report, however, the disciplinary authority, Director of Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh, second respondent proceeded to pass an impugned order which reads as under: "्शी ्शवण कु मार समाज कल्याण सुपरवाइजर कायार्लय िजला समाज कल्याण अिधकारी मुजफ् फर नगर को िनदेशालय प्ऴ संख्या 623/स०क०/स्था04/2009-10 िदनांक 16-6-2009 के अन्तगर्त आरोप प्ऴ जारी करते हुए इनके िवरु्ध अनुशासिनक कायर्वाही संस्थािपत की गयी थी और आरोपों की जाँच हेतु ्शी एल०डी० पाण्डेय, संयु्व िनदेशक (मु०) को जाँच अिधकारी नािमत िकया गया था, ्शी एल०डी० पाण्डेय, संयुका िनदेशक (मु०) का स्थानान्तरण मुख्यालय से बाहर हो जाने के फलस्वरूप िनदेशालय आदेश संख्या 2632- 33/म०क०/स्था04/2010-11 िदनांक 28-12-2010 ्षारा ्ऺकरण की जाँच हेतु ्शी रमाकान्त संयु्व िनदेशक (गु०) को जाँच अिधकारी नािमत िकया गया था। जाँच अिधकारी ्षारा ्ऺकरण में अपने प्ऴ सं० 382/स०क०/सं०िन० एस०/जीच/2011-12 िदनांक 20-6-2011 ्षारा जाँच आख्या उपलब्ध करायी गयी, िजसमें आरोपी कमर्चारी पर जाँच अिधकारी ्षारा आरोप ्ऺमािणत नहीं पाया गया। उपलब्ध करायी गयी जाँच आाख्या की िनदेशालय स्तर पर समी्षा की गयी। समी्षोपरान्त यह पाया गया िक अपचारी कमर्चारी ्षारा शासनादेश िदनांक 01-6-1999 ्षारा जारी जाब चाटर् के अनुरूप अपने दाियत्वों का िनवर्हन न कर शादी/बीमारी अनुदान, वृ्धावस्था पेंशन योजना, छा्ऴवृि्त एवं शुल्क ्षितपूित योजनाओं में हुयी अिनयिमतताओं में परो्ष सहयोग िदया गया है। इस कारणवश अपचारी कमर्चारी पर पर ्ऺथम दृ्िया आरोप ्ऺमािणत होने की दशा में ्शी ्शवण कु मार को वृहद दण्ड िदये जाने का िनणर्य लेते हुए िनदेशालय प्ऴांक 4434/स०क०/स्था04/2011-12 िदनांक 16-3-2012 ्षारा कारण बताओ नोिटस जारी की गयी थी। ्शी ्शवण कु मार ्षारा अपने प्ऴ िदनाक 9-4-2012 ्षारा कारण बताओं नोिटस का उ्तर उपलब्ध कराते हुए कहा गया है िक जाँच अिधकारी को पूवर् ्ऺेिषत उ्तर िदनांक 09-2-2011 के अितिर्व उसे कु छ नहीं कहना है। कारण बताओ नोिटस का परी्षण करने पर पाया गया िक अपचारी कमर्चारी ्षारा अपने उ्तर में कोई ऐसा तथ्य ्ऺस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है, िजससे संिस्थत िवभागीय कायर्वाही में िनदेशालय स्तर पर समी्षा में ्ऺमािणत पाये गये आरोपों का उसके ्षारा खण्डन िकया गया हो. या उ्तके ्ऺित औिचत्यपूणर् कारणों को दिशत करते हुए उसके ्षारा कोई आपि्त की गयी हो। स्प्ि है िक कारण बताओ नोिटस के तहत ्ऺमािणत संसूिचत आरोप के 4 WRIA No. 53866 of 2014 िवरू्ध अपचारी कमर्चारी को कु छ नहीं कहना है। अतः िनदेशालय स्तर पर समी्षा / पिरशीलन में ्ऺमािणत पाये आरोप की गम्भीरता को दृि्िगत रखते हुए अपचारी कमर्चारी ्शी ्शवण कु मार, समाज कल्याण सुपरवाइजर की 03 वािषक वेतनवृि्ध संचयी ्ऺभाव से रोकते हुए ्ऺचिलत िवभागीय/अनुशासिनक कायर्वाही एतद््षारा समाप्त की जाती है।"

10. A bare look of the order impugned would reveal that the same is non- speaking and unreasoned and there is no reason accorded while disagreeing with the finding of the inquiry report while holding the charges to be proved. The consideration which weighed the disciplinary authority was to the extent that since the writ petitioner has not submitted anything charges in its reply to the show cause notice containing disagreement, thus, the charges stood automatically proved.

11. In the opinion of the Court, the said approach to the competent authority is not justifiable in law, particularly, when the disciplinary authority was under obligations to have recorded reasons in coming to the conclusion. Since the said discrepancy goes to the root of the matter which vitiates the impugned order, thus, the order cannot be sustained.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner: (a) The order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the Director of Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh, second respondent is set aside. (b). The matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

13. Since the writ petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2013, thus, it is required that the competent authority shall pass an fresh order within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.

14. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. October 10, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Shiv Kant Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Pal, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner is that while writ petitioner was working as Samaj Kalyan Supervisor, a chargesheet came to be served upon the writ petitioner on 16.06.2009 with an allegation that the writ petitioner during the period of is posting from 2004-05 to 2008-09 had committed certain irregularities, pursuant whereto the State suffered loss while posted as Samaj Kalyan Supervisor. The writ petitioner responded to the chargesheet while submitting an objection and being not satisfied with the reply/ objection submitted by the writ petitioner to the chargesheet, the inquiry officer was appointed, tendered inquiry report dated 20.06.2011 exonerating the writ petitioner from the said charges. Thereafter on

16.03.2012, the Director of Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh, second respondent proceeded to issue a show cause notice disagreeing with the finding of the inquiry officer requiring the writ petitioner, delinquent employee to submit its response/ objection to the disagreement note as incorporated in the show cause notice. The writ petitioner on 09.04.2012 submitted a reply wherein he came up with the stand that he is nothing to say except reliance has been placed upon the inquiry report thereafter the order impugned dated 2 WRIA No. 53866 of 2014

03.08.2012 came to be passed by the Director of Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh withholding of three increments with cumulative effect.

4. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition.

5. This Court entertained the writ petition and sought response from the State to which a counter affidavit came to be filed by the State sworn by District Social Welfare Officer, Prayagraj dated 17.07.2019 to which a rejoinder affidavit was also filed which is available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order impugned imposing punishment passed by the Director of Samaj Kalyan cannot be sustained for the simple reason that once post issuance of a chargesheet, an inquiry officer stood appointed who conducted the inquiry and exonerated the writ petitioner/ delinquent employee and the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the inquiry report disagreed with the finding contained therein and issue a show cause notice which stood replied by the writ petitioner with the stand that he has nothing to say except reliance has been placed upon the inquiry report then it was obligatory upon the disciplinary authority to have recorded the reasons in coming to the conclusion that the charges stood proved while recording reasons. He submits that the disciplinary authority has though passed an order which is virtually in three paragraphs, first paragraph is dedicated towards the fact, second paragraph is also dedicated towards the reply to the show cause notice but the third paragraph which shows the conclusion which does not contain any reasons in coming to the conclusion as to why the charges stood proved against the writ petitioner by the disciplinary authority despite the fact that inquiry report was in favour of the writ petitioner. He thus submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

7. Shri S.K. Pal, learned Standing Counsel submits that it is the prerogative and the domain of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the finding of the inquiry officer which has been done, however, according to him, a discrepancy stood crept in order as there are no reasons in coming to the conclusion how the charges stood proved against the writ petitioner post disagreement. He thus submits that the impugned order be set aside and the 3 WRIA No. 53866 of 2014 matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

9. The facts are not in issue. The chargesheet came to be served upon the writ petitioner which was replied by the writ petitioner thereafter an inquiry officer tendered his inquiry report on 20.06.2011 exonerating the writ petitioner thereafter the show cause notice containing disagreement was issued by the disciplinary authority on 16.03.2012 and the writ petitioner submitted his reply mentioning therein that he has nothing to say except the fact that he relies upon the inquiry report, however, the disciplinary authority, Director of Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh, second respondent proceeded to pass an impugned order which reads as under: "्शी ्शवण कु मार समाज कल्याण सुपरवाइजर कायार्लय िजला समाज कल्याण अिधकारी मुजफ् फर नगर को िनदेशालय प्ऴ संख्या 623/स०क०/स्था04/2009-10 िदनांक 16-6-2009 के अन्तगर्त आरोप प्ऴ जारी करते हुए इनके िवरु्ध अनुशासिनक कायर्वाही संस्थािपत की गयी थी और आरोपों की जाँच हेतु ्शी एल०डी० पाण्डेय, संयु्व िनदेशक (मु०) को जाँच अिधकारी नािमत िकया गया था, ्शी एल०डी० पाण्डेय, संयुका िनदेशक (मु०) का स्थानान्तरण मुख्यालय से बाहर हो जाने के फलस्वरूप िनदेशालय आदेश संख्या 2632- 33/म०क०/स्था04/2010-11 िदनांक 28-12-2010 ्षारा ्ऺकरण की जाँच हेतु ्शी रमाकान्त संयु्व िनदेशक (गु०) को जाँच अिधकारी नािमत िकया गया था। जाँच अिधकारी ्षारा ्ऺकरण में अपने प्ऴ सं० 382/स०क०/सं०िन० एस०/जीच/2011-12 िदनांक 20-6-2011 ्षारा जाँच आख्या उपलब्ध करायी गयी, िजसमें आरोपी कमर्चारी पर जाँच अिधकारी ्षारा आरोप ्ऺमािणत नहीं पाया गया। उपलब्ध करायी गयी जाँच आाख्या की िनदेशालय स्तर पर समी्षा की गयी। समी्षोपरान्त यह पाया गया िक अपचारी कमर्चारी ्षारा शासनादेश िदनांक 01-6-1999 ्षारा जारी जाब चाटर् के अनुरूप अपने दाियत्वों का िनवर्हन न कर शादी/बीमारी अनुदान, वृ्धावस्था पेंशन योजना, छा्ऴवृि्त एवं शुल्क ्षितपूित योजनाओं में हुयी अिनयिमतताओं में परो्ष सहयोग िदया गया है। इस कारणवश अपचारी कमर्चारी पर पर ्ऺथम दृ्िया आरोप ्ऺमािणत होने की दशा में ्शी ्शवण कु मार को वृहद दण्ड िदये जाने का िनणर्य लेते हुए िनदेशालय प्ऴांक 4434/स०क०/स्था04/2011-12 िदनांक 16-3-2012 ्षारा कारण बताओ नोिटस जारी की गयी थी। ्शी ्शवण कु मार ्षारा अपने प्ऴ िदनाक 9-4-2012 ्षारा कारण बताओं नोिटस का उ्तर उपलब्ध कराते हुए कहा गया है िक जाँच अिधकारी को पूवर् ्ऺेिषत उ्तर िदनांक 09-2-2011 के अितिर्व उसे कु छ नहीं कहना है। कारण बताओ नोिटस का परी्षण करने पर पाया गया िक अपचारी कमर्चारी ्षारा अपने उ्तर में कोई ऐसा तथ्य ्ऺस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है, िजससे संिस्थत िवभागीय कायर्वाही में िनदेशालय स्तर पर समी्षा में ्ऺमािणत पाये गये आरोपों का उसके ्षारा खण्डन िकया गया हो. या उ्तके ्ऺित औिचत्यपूणर् कारणों को दिशत करते हुए उसके ्षारा कोई आपि्त की गयी हो। स्प्ि है िक कारण बताओ नोिटस के तहत ्ऺमािणत संसूिचत आरोप के 4 WRIA No. 53866 of 2014 िवरू्ध अपचारी कमर्चारी को कु छ नहीं कहना है। अतः िनदेशालय स्तर पर समी्षा / पिरशीलन में ्ऺमािणत पाये आरोप की गम्भीरता को दृि्िगत रखते हुए अपचारी कमर्चारी ्शी ्शवण कु मार, समाज कल्याण सुपरवाइजर की 03 वािषक वेतनवृि्ध संचयी ्ऺभाव से रोकते हुए ्ऺचिलत िवभागीय/अनुशासिनक कायर्वाही एतद््षारा समाप्त की जाती है।"

10. A bare look of the order impugned would reveal that the same is non- speaking and unreasoned and there is no reason accorded while disagreeing with the finding of the inquiry report while holding the charges to be proved. The consideration which weighed the disciplinary authority was to the extent that since the writ petitioner has not submitted anything charges in its reply to the show cause notice containing disagreement, thus, the charges stood automatically proved.

11. In the opinion of the Court, the said approach to the competent authority is not justifiable in law, particularly, when the disciplinary authority was under obligations to have recorded reasons in coming to the conclusion. Since the said discrepancy goes to the root of the matter which vitiates the impugned order, thus, the order cannot be sustained.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner: (a) The order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the Director of Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh, second respondent is set aside. (b). The matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

13. Since the writ petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2013, thus, it is required that the competent authority shall pass an fresh order within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.

14. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. October 10, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad