High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.01.2025 whereby the petitioner has been issued with a new chargesheet contemplating an enquiry upon the charges contained therein in purported exercise of power under Rule 9(1) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

3. Two fold argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner to assail the order: firstly, such a power is not concieved of or contemplated under Rule 9(1) of the 1999 Rules as that power only becomes exercisable after the enquiry report is submitted under Rule 8; and secondly, even the earlier chargesheet that was issued in the year 2020, it has surfaced out in the letter of the District Basic Education OfÏcer that no preliminary fact finding enquiry was directed and it was merely on the basis of the observations made in the letter head of the Cabinet Minister (Village Development) that an enquiry was set into motion. Thus according to him there was no complaint as such supported by afÏdavit so as to warrant any action under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules.

4. Meeting the above submissions learned Standing Counsel has argued that as far as Rule 9(1) is concerned, of course, there is no such power vested but in the event earlier enquiry ofÏcer has not proceeded to hold enquiry, then it is always within the discretion of the disciplinary authority to appoint new enquiry ofÏcer to conduct enquiry into the same charges. He contends that although the second chargesheet should not have been issued in the face of the fact that the first chargesheet issued to the petitioner on 06.10.2020 was never recalled, however the charges being the same this Court can even direct for enquiry to be proceeded pursuant to the chargesheet dated 06.10.2020 alone.

5. Meeting the second submission learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier challenged the order of suspension as well as the disciplinary proceedings vide writ petition being Writ A No.7792 of 2020 which is still pending and in which while staying the suspension order the Court directed the respondents to proceed with the enquiry and petitioner had also given undertaking that he would cooperate in the same.

6. In such circumstances, therefore, it is contended that this Court once has made it open for the disciplinary authority to proceed with the enquiry and the petitioner also recorded his consent for the same, now petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around to suggest that there was no such preliminary fact finding enquiry held in the matter and that enquiry was set into motion clearly for the observations made in the letter head of the Hon'ble Minister, so it was bad. It is further contended that the said petition is still pending consideration before this Court.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record prima facie, I find that the Rule that has been referred to in the letter dated 27.01.2025 by the Additional Director of Education (Basic), U.P. the firstly Rule 9(1) which is of course, mentioned could not have been enforced at the stage when the enquiry report had yet not been submitted but this law is well settled that disciplinary authority has a dissertion to change the enquiry ofÏcer. The delinquent employee has the remedy against the same questioning the appointment of new enquiry ofÏcer with which if he is prejudiced, otherwise he shall have opportunity to meet the charges afresh or from the stage, the enquiry ofÏcer is appointed.

8. Hence, I decline to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is bad only for mentioning Rule 9(1). It is a well settled legal position that even if the provision of law has got wrongly mentioned in the order passed by the authority, if the authority is competent in the matter as such to issue direction or to pass order then the mentioning/questioning wrong Section or Rule. vitiated

9. So far as the other argument is concerned, I find that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 30.09.2020 passed in Writ A No.7792 of2020 directed for the disciplinary authority to proceed with the departmental proceeding and the petitioner has also given an undertaking. However, I notice that the fresh chargesheet got issued by the disciplinary authority despite the fact that earlier chargesheet dated 06.10.2020 was still surviving and there is no such order recalling the earlier chargesheet. In such circumstances so far as the second chargesheet dated 27.01.2025 is concerned that is hereby quashed whereas with regard to earlier chargesheet dated 27.10.2025 following directions are issued: (a). Petitioner shall be submitting reply to the chargesheet within two weeks' time. (b). If petitioner submits reply as directed hereinabove, the departmental inquiry shall be brought to its logical end in the next six weeks' time after due participation and cooperation of the petitioner in the departmental inquiry. (c). After the departmental inquiry is concluded as directed hereinabove, the disciplinary authority shall proceed to pass final order in the matter in full compliance of the principles of natural justice within the next six weeks' time. (d). Petitioner shall be cooperating in the inquiry throughout right from the submission of the reply to the chargesheet until the disciplinary proceeding is concluded. However, in the event petitioner does not render due support and cooperation in the inquiry, it will remain open for the Inquiry OfÏcer to proceed with inquiry in accordance with law and submit the report before the disciplinary authority, who shall thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law.

9. In so far as the third relief is concerned for grant of ACP, it is always open for the petitioner to take this plea after disciplinary proceedings are concluded.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Deepika DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.01.2025 whereby the petitioner has been issued with a new chargesheet contemplating an enquiry upon the charges contained therein in purported exercise of power under Rule 9(1) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

3. Two fold argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner to assail the order: firstly, such a power is not concieved of or contemplated under Rule 9(1) of the 1999 Rules as that power only becomes exercisable after the enquiry report is submitted under Rule 8; and secondly, even the earlier chargesheet that was issued in the year 2020, it has surfaced out in the letter of the District Basic Education OfÏcer that no preliminary fact finding enquiry was directed and it was merely on the basis of the observations made in the letter head of the Cabinet Minister (Village Development) that an enquiry was set into motion. Thus according to him there was no complaint as such supported by afÏdavit so as to warrant any action under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules.

4. Meeting the above submissions learned Standing Counsel has argued that as far as Rule 9(1) is concerned, of course, there is no such power vested but in the event earlier enquiry ofÏcer has not proceeded to hold enquiry, then it is always within the discretion of the disciplinary authority to appoint new enquiry ofÏcer to conduct enquiry into the same charges. He contends that although the second chargesheet should not have been issued in the face of the fact that the first chargesheet issued to the petitioner on 06.10.2020 was never recalled, however the charges being the same this Court can even direct for enquiry to be proceeded pursuant to the chargesheet dated 06.10.2020 alone.

5. Meeting the second submission learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier challenged the order of suspension as well as the disciplinary proceedings vide writ petition being Writ A No.7792 of 2020 which is still pending and in which while staying the suspension order the Court directed the respondents to proceed with the enquiry and petitioner had also given undertaking that he would cooperate in the same.

6. In such circumstances, therefore, it is contended that this Court once has made it open for the disciplinary authority to proceed with the enquiry and the petitioner also recorded his consent for the same, now petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around to suggest that there was no such preliminary fact finding enquiry held in the matter and that enquiry was set into motion clearly for the observations made in the letter head of the Hon'ble Minister, so it was bad. It is further contended that the said petition is still pending consideration before this Court.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record prima facie, I find that the Rule that has been referred to in the letter dated 27.01.2025 by the Additional Director of Education (Basic), U.P. the firstly Rule 9(1) which is of course, mentioned could not have been enforced at the stage when the enquiry report had yet not been submitted but this law is well settled that disciplinary authority has a dissertion to change the enquiry ofÏcer. The delinquent employee has the remedy against the same questioning the appointment of new enquiry ofÏcer with which if he is prejudiced, otherwise he shall have opportunity to meet the charges afresh or from the stage, the enquiry ofÏcer is appointed.

8. Hence, I decline to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is bad only for mentioning Rule 9(1). It is a well settled legal position that even if the provision of law has got wrongly mentioned in the order passed by the authority, if the authority is competent in the matter as such to issue direction or to pass order then the mentioning/questioning wrong Section or Rule. vitiated

9. So far as the other argument is concerned, I find that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 30.09.2020 passed in Writ A No.7792 of2020 directed for the disciplinary authority to proceed with the departmental proceeding and the petitioner has also given an undertaking. However, I notice that the fresh chargesheet got issued by the disciplinary authority despite the fact that earlier chargesheet dated 06.10.2020 was still surviving and there is no such order recalling the earlier chargesheet. In such circumstances so far as the second chargesheet dated 27.01.2025 is concerned that is hereby quashed whereas with regard to earlier chargesheet dated 27.10.2025 following directions are issued: (a). Petitioner shall be submitting reply to the chargesheet within two weeks' time. (b). If petitioner submits reply as directed hereinabove, the departmental inquiry shall be brought to its logical end in the next six weeks' time after due participation and cooperation of the petitioner in the departmental inquiry. (c). After the departmental inquiry is concluded as directed hereinabove, the disciplinary authority shall proceed to pass final order in the matter in full compliance of the principles of natural justice within the next six weeks' time. (d). Petitioner shall be cooperating in the inquiry throughout right from the submission of the reply to the chargesheet until the disciplinary proceeding is concluded. However, in the event petitioner does not render due support and cooperation in the inquiry, it will remain open for the Inquiry OfÏcer to proceed with inquiry in accordance with law and submit the report before the disciplinary authority, who shall thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law.

9. In so far as the third relief is concerned for grant of ACP, it is always open for the petitioner to take this plea after disciplinary proceedings are concluded.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Deepika DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad