Krishna Kant … v. State of U.P. And 2 Others

24.04.2025, affirming/upholding the order dated 06.03.2024. 3 (Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P. and others) 5 Writ-A No.10029 of 2025 (xiv) The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025, allowed the employer to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law, while stipulating that the issue of arrears of salary from 2021 would depend on the outcome of the new inquiry. Pursuant to this order, Respondent No. 2 initiated disciplinary proceedings on 07.05.2025, based on the same facts, and appointed Respondent No. 3 as the Inquiry Officer. (xv) Respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 14.05.2025, directing 11 persons, including the petitioner's family members, to record statements on 19.05.2025 in the office of Respondent No. 2. The said date has been mentioned in the inquiry report and the impugned order also. However, in the counter affidavit, Respondent No. 2 claimed that the letter was issued for a vigilance inquiry, raising questions about the role of Respondent No. 3, as he was initially appointed as a Inquiry Officer for a disciplinary inquiry. (xvi) The petitioner submitted his reply to the letter on 19.05.2025, requesting that the inquiry proceedings adhere to relevant statutory provisions and Government Orders. (xvii) An identical letter/notice dated 29.05.2025 was also issued, and in the said notice, the hearing dates in the vigilance inquiry, as alleged by respondent No. 3, were mentioned as 19.05.2025, 05.06.2025,

09.06.2025, 11.06.2025, and 13.06.2025. Notably, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for a hearing in the disciplinary inquiry, despite this being mentioned in the impugned order. (xviii) The respondents issued a supplementary charge sheet dated

20.05.2025, levelling 9 vague charges against the petitioner without following due procedure or applying judicious mind. The petitioner submitted replies to the supplementary charge sheet on 04.06.2025,

23.06.2025, and 28.06.2025, via registered post, but the respondents failed to consider them, as evident from the postal receipts annexed. 6 Writ-A No.10029 of 2025 (xix) Thereafter, on 30.06.2025, the petitioner appeared before Respondent No. 2, as per the letter dated 23.06.2025, and submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner also brought to notice the actions of Sri Sanjay Kumar, Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Rajgarh, Mirzapur (Inquiry Officer), through a letter, which is acknowledged in the impugned order. However, the impugned order's findings do not address the petitioner's contentions. (xx) Respondent No.2 seemingly attempted to circumvent the contempt petition by passing the impugned order dated 04.07.2025, and filing it with an affidavit, just days before the scheduled personal appearance on

07.07.2025. This action appears to be an effort to avoid salary payment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following contentions:- (i) The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not prescribed under the 1999 Rules. It is a settled proposition of law that a punishment not prescribed under the rules, as a result of disciplinary proceeding cannot be imposed. This principle has been established through various judgments, including Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P., Dr. Vinay Mohan Van Vs. Smt. Kanchan Srivastava, Pratap Narain Saxena Vs. State of U.P., and Satya Dev Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (ii) The Inquiry Officer denied receiving the petitioner's reply to the charge sheet on multiple occasions. Furthermore, despite no witnesses being proposed in the charge sheet, the Inquiry Officer recorded statements from two witnesses, namely, Sneh Lata and Anita, without providing the petitioner an opportunity for cross-examination. (iii) The Inquiry Officer recorded statements from witnesses, who were not proposed in the charge sheet, and the Disciplinary Authority relied on these statements while passing the impugned order. This amounts to reliance on extraneous material, which is impermissible in law. 7 Writ-A No.10029 of 2025 (iv) The impugned order acknowledges the petitioner's reply/representation, yet an ex-parte order was passed, effectively disregarding the petitioner's submission. (v) Rule 5(1) of the 1999 Rules, which is cited as the sole basis for the punishment was not in existence at the time of petitioner’s appointment. Respondent No. 2 knowingly framed charges based on this non-existent rule. The charges framed in the charge sheet are in violation of Rule 7(iii) of the 1999 Rules. (vi) During open vigilance inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been dropped by the disciplinary authority as per the government orders, surprisingly, instead of dropping proceedings, the disciplinary authority treated the vigilance inquiry itself as a charge, i.e. charge no.9. (vii) Regarding the pension received by the petitioner's father, the respondents issued a show-cause notice dated 05.08.2025, to which the petitioner replied on 26.08.2025, via registered post. However, these subsequent developments hold no weight in determining the writ petition, as they occurred after the impugned punishment order dated

04.07.2025. Moreover, since the decision on these subsequent matters is still pending, no inference or opinion can be drawn. (viii) The succession certificate is genuine, authentic, and undisputed, and neither the complainant nor the Inquiry Officer has challenged it before any competent forum. They had the opportunity to contest it under the Succession Act. The certificate can only be revoked under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Similarly, the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Tehsildar can only be challenged before the competent authority. Therefore, neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority has the power to declare these certificates forged in disciplinary proceedings under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. (ix) The succession certificate has not been challenged before the competent authority, it cannot be presumed to be forged. Thus, its 8 Writ-A No.10029 of 2025 genuineness and authenticity are well established. Furthermore, the inquiry report reveals procedural irregularities. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 17.06.2025, requesting time, but the Officer submitted the report the same day without granting any time. Additionally, the report acknowledges the petitioner's submission of a reply to Respondent No. 2 on 30.06.2025, yet the impugned order fails to consider this reply, indicating that the inquiry was conducted ex-parte and in violation of due procedure. (x) Judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited, therefore, the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran4. It cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own opinion. The Court's scope of interference is restricted to ensuring procedural fairness, adherence to principles of natural justice, and rationality in decision-making. (xi) There is no basis for the complainant's claim to compassionate appointment after 27 years. Moreover, the documents submitted by the petitioner clearly establish his relationship as the son of Late Sumitra Devi and no credible evidence has been produced to the contrary. (xii) In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments:- (a) In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when relevant documents and affidavits were examined and the authority is satisfied, challenge on grounds of concealment at a later stage must be substantiated with clear evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. (b) In the case of SBI vs. Raj Kumar6, the Apex Court has opined that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but once it is granted 4 5 6

24.04.2025, affirming/upholding the order dated 06.03.2024. 3 (Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P. and others) 5 Writ-A No.10029 of 2025 (xiv) The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025, allowed the employer to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law, while stipulating that the issue of arrears of salary from 2021 would depend on the outcome of the new inquiry. Pursuant to this order, Respondent No. 2 initiated disciplinary proceedings on 07.05.2025, based on the same facts, and appointed Respondent No. 3 as the Inquiry Officer. (xv) Respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 14.05.2025, directing 11 persons, including the petitioner's family members, to record statements on 19.05.2025 in the office of Respondent No. 2. The said date has been mentioned in the inquiry report and the impugned order also. However, in the counter affidavit, Respondent No. 2 claimed that the letter was issued for a vigilance inquiry, raising questions about the role of Respondent No. 3, as he was initially appointed as a Inquiry Officer for a disciplinary inquiry. (xvi) The petitioner submitted his reply to the letter on 19.05.2025, requesting that the inquiry proceedings adhere to relevant statutory provisions and Government Orders. (xvii) An identical letter/notice dated 29.05.2025 was also issued, and in the said notice, the hearing dates in the vigilance inquiry, as alleged by respondent No. 3, were mentioned as 19.05.2025, 05.06.2025,

09.06.2025, 11.06.2025, and 13.06.2025. Notably, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for a hearing in the disciplinary inquiry, despite this being mentioned in the impugned order. (xviii) The respondents issued a supplementary charge sheet dated

20.05.2025, levelling 9 vague charges against the petitioner without following due procedure or applying judicious mind. The petitioner submitted replies to the supplementary charge sheet on 04.06.2025,

23.06.2025, and 28.06.2025, via registered post, but the respondents failed to consider them, as evident from the postal receipts annexed. 6 Writ-A No.10029 of 2025 (xix) Thereafter, on 30.06.2025, the petitioner appeared before Respondent No. 2, as per the letter dated 23.06.2025, and submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner also brought to notice the actions of Sri Sanjay Kumar, Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Rajgarh, Mirzapur (Inquiry Officer), through a letter, which is acknowledged in the impugned order. However, the impugned order's findings do not address the petitioner's contentions. (xx) Respondent No.2 seemingly attempted to circumvent the contempt petition by passing the impugned order dated 04.07.2025, and filing it with an affidavit, just days before the scheduled personal appearance on

07.07.2025. This action appears to be an effort to avoid salary payment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following contentions:- (i) The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not prescribed under the 1999 Rules. It is a settled proposition of law that a punishment not prescribed under the rules, as a result of disciplinary proceeding cannot be imposed. This principle has been established through various judgments, including Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P., Dr. Vinay Mohan Van Vs. Smt. Kanchan Srivastava, Pratap Narain Saxena Vs. State of U.P., and Satya Dev Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (ii) The Inquiry Officer denied receiving the petitioner's reply to the charge sheet on multiple occasions. Furthermore, despite no witnesses being proposed in the charge sheet, the Inquiry Officer recorded statements from two witnesses, namely, Sneh Lata and Anita, without providing the petitioner an opportunity for cross-examination. (iii) The Inquiry Officer recorded statements from witnesses, who were not proposed in the charge sheet, and the Disciplinary Authority relied on these statements while passing the impugned order. This amounts to reliance on extraneous material, which is impermissible in law. 7 Writ-A No.10029 of 2025 (iv) The impugned order acknowledges the petitioner's reply/representation, yet an ex-parte order was passed, effectively disregarding the petitioner's submission. (v) Rule 5(1) of the 1999 Rules, which is cited as the sole basis for the punishment was not in existence at the time of petitioner’s appointment. Respondent No. 2 knowingly framed charges based on this non-existent rule. The charges framed in the charge sheet are in violation of Rule 7(iii) of the 1999 Rules. (vi) During open vigilance inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been dropped by the disciplinary authority as per the government orders, surprisingly, instead of dropping proceedings, the disciplinary authority treated the vigilance inquiry itself as a charge, i.e. charge no.9. (vii) Regarding the pension received by the petitioner's father, the respondents issued a show-cause notice dated 05.08.2025, to which the petitioner replied on 26.08.2025, via registered post. However, these subsequent developments hold no weight in determining the writ petition, as they occurred after the impugned punishment order dated

04.07.2025. Moreover, since the decision on these subsequent matters is still pending, no inference or opinion can be drawn. (viii) The succession certificate is genuine, authentic, and undisputed, and neither the complainant nor the Inquiry Officer has challenged it before any competent forum. They had the opportunity to contest it under the Succession Act. The certificate can only be revoked under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Similarly, the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Tehsildar can only be challenged before the competent authority. Therefore, neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority has the power to declare these certificates forged in disciplinary proceedings under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. (ix) The succession certificate has not been challenged before the competent authority, it cannot be presumed to be forged. Thus, its 8 Writ-A No.10029 of 2025 genuineness and authenticity are well established. Furthermore, the inquiry report reveals procedural irregularities. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 17.06.2025, requesting time, but the Officer submitted the report the same day without granting any time. Additionally, the report acknowledges the petitioner's submission of a reply to Respondent No. 2 on 30.06.2025, yet the impugned order fails to consider this reply, indicating that the inquiry was conducted ex-parte and in violation of due procedure. (x) Judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited, therefore, the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran4. It cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own opinion. The Court's scope of interference is restricted to ensuring procedural fairness, adherence to principles of natural justice, and rationality in decision-making. (xi) There is no basis for the complainant's claim to compassionate appointment after 27 years. Moreover, the documents submitted by the petitioner clearly establish his relationship as the son of Late Sumitra Devi and no credible evidence has been produced to the contrary. (xii) In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments:- (a) In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when relevant documents and affidavits were examined and the authority is satisfied, challenge on grounds of concealment at a later stage must be substantiated with clear evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. (b) In the case of SBI vs. Raj Kumar6, the Apex Court has opined that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but once it is granted 4 5 6