Anirudh Kumar Pandey v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himanshu Singh (A/H 0277/2019) holding brief of Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

2. This Court entertained the writ petition on 16.10.2025 and sought instructions from the learned Standing Counsel. Today instructions have been forwarded under the signature of Director, Printing & Stationery, U.P, Prayagraj.

3. 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, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the month of December, 1993 and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Senior Clerk and further Head Assistant. However, he was placed under suspension on 11.08.2023 and attached to the Government Press, Rampur. Thereafter as per the writ petitioner, inquiry proceedings stood initiated and the writ petitioner without being served with the chargehseet, the inquiry officer summoned the petitioner to appear before it and without conducting any oral inquiry, the inquiry officer held the writ petitioner guilty of the charges and thereafter based upon the inquiry report which was not served upon the writ petitioner, the impugned punishment order came to be passed on 18.09.2025 by the second respondent, Director, Printing & Stationery, U.P, Prayagraj whereby the 2 WRIA No. 15520 of 2025 petitioner was though reinstated in service but a censure entry along with punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect came to be passed and an order came to be passed to the extent that the petitioner shall remain posted at Government Press, Rampur.

5. Questioning the order dated 18.09.2025 insofar as it imposes the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, censure entry and continuing him to be attached/ posted at Rampur, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the impugned order insofar as it imposes punishment as well as accords posting to the writ petitioner at Rampur cannot be sustained for the simple reason that as per the provisions contained under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, a procedure has been set out, according to which, inquiries to be conducted. Submission is that first of all, a charge- sheet containing the allegations is to be served thereafter an opportunity is to be accorded to the delinquent to submit his objection and in case, the delinquent denied his charges and then inquiry officer is to be appointed who shall conduct oral inquiry while giving opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses who have been entrusted with the duty to bring home the charges and thereafter post submission of the inquiry report, a show cause notice is to be issued to the delinquent and after consideration of the reply so submitted by the delinquent employee, an order is to be passed. He submits that in the present case, there has been violation of principles of natural justice, as the writ petitioner was not served with the chargesheet and further there was no oral inquiry conducted. He further submits that since the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment, thus, the provision of Rule 7 would come into play.

7. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that from the perusal of the allegations so levelled upon the writ petitioner, it becomes apparently clear that there is serious in nature, however, according to him, no oral inquiry was conducted. He thus submits that in view of the provisions contained under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules, oral inquiry was mandatory, irrespective of the fact that the delinquent employee asked for oral inquiry or not. He submits that the order insofar it imposes punishment be set aside, leaving it open to the respondent to conduct fresh inquiry as per the law. 3 WRIA No. 15520 of 2025

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

9. The facts are not in issue. It is not issue that the writ petitioner was suspended. He was also initially attached in the Government Press, Rampur and post holding of an inquiry with the writ petitioner claims to be an exparte inquiry, the impugned punishment order came to be passed on

18.09.2025 by the second respondent, Director, Printing & Stationery, U.P, Prayagraj whereby censure entry along with withholding of two increments with cumulative effect came to be passed while reinstating the writ petitioner and posting him in Government Press, Rampur.

10. Apparently, there has been violation of Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules as there happens to be no oral inquiry conducted as the same is also not forthcoming.

11. On a pointed query being raised to the learned Standing Counsel whether any oral inquiry was conducted, his answer is in negative.

12. Bearing the fact that oral inquiry has not been conducted and the writ petitioner alleges that he has not been served with the chargesheet, the proceedings cannot be continued.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner: (a). The order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Director, Printing & Stationery, U.P, Prayagraj imposing the punishment of censure and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is set aside. (b) The passing of the order today would not preclude the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry.

14. In case, the disciplinary authority proceeds to conduct inquiry then the same be conducted and concluded within a period of four months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order subject to cooperation of the party.

15. Since the writ petitioner stood attached to Government Press, Rampur during the period when he was placed under suspension and now the punishment order has been set aside, thus, it shall be open for the authorities to take a fresh decision regarding posting of the writ petitioner.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 4 WRIA No. 15520 of 2025

17. Instructions have been filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A. October 28, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himanshu Singh (A/H 0277/2019) holding brief of Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

2. This Court entertained the writ petition on 16.10.2025 and sought instructions from the learned Standing Counsel. Today instructions have been forwarded under the signature of Director, Printing & Stationery, U.P, Prayagraj.

3. 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, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the month of December, 1993 and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Senior Clerk and further Head Assistant. However, he was placed under suspension on 11.08.2023 and attached to the Government Press, Rampur. Thereafter as per the writ petitioner, inquiry proceedings stood initiated and the writ petitioner without being served with the chargehseet, the inquiry officer summoned the petitioner to appear before it and without conducting any oral inquiry, the inquiry officer held the writ petitioner guilty of the charges and thereafter based upon the inquiry report which was not served upon the writ petitioner, the impugned punishment order came to be passed on 18.09.2025 by the second respondent, Director, Printing & Stationery, U.P, Prayagraj whereby the 2 WRIA No. 15520 of 2025 petitioner was though reinstated in service but a censure entry along with punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect came to be passed and an order came to be passed to the extent that the petitioner shall remain posted at Government Press, Rampur.

5. Questioning the order dated 18.09.2025 insofar as it imposes the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, censure entry and continuing him to be attached/ posted at Rampur, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the impugned order insofar as it imposes punishment as well as accords posting to the writ petitioner at Rampur cannot be sustained for the simple reason that as per the provisions contained under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, a procedure has been set out, according to which, inquiries to be conducted. Submission is that first of all, a charge- sheet containing the allegations is to be served thereafter an opportunity is to be accorded to the delinquent to submit his objection and in case, the delinquent denied his charges and then inquiry officer is to be appointed who shall conduct oral inquiry while giving opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses who have been entrusted with the duty to bring home the charges and thereafter post submission of the inquiry report, a show cause notice is to be issued to the delinquent and after consideration of the reply so submitted by the delinquent employee, an order is to be passed. He submits that in the present case, there has been violation of principles of natural justice, as the writ petitioner was not served with the chargesheet and further there was no oral inquiry conducted. He further submits that since the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment, thus, the provision of Rule 7 would come into play.

7. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that from the perusal of the allegations so levelled upon the writ petitioner, it becomes apparently clear that there is serious in nature, however, according to him, no oral inquiry was conducted. He thus submits that in view of the provisions contained under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules, oral inquiry was mandatory, irrespective of the fact that the delinquent employee asked for oral inquiry or not. He submits that the order insofar it imposes punishment be set aside, leaving it open to the respondent to conduct fresh inquiry as per the law. 3 WRIA No. 15520 of 2025

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

9. The facts are not in issue. It is not issue that the writ petitioner was suspended. He was also initially attached in the Government Press, Rampur and post holding of an inquiry with the writ petitioner claims to be an exparte inquiry, the impugned punishment order came to be passed on

18.09.2025 by the second respondent, Director, Printing & Stationery, U.P, Prayagraj whereby censure entry along with withholding of two increments with cumulative effect came to be passed while reinstating the writ petitioner and posting him in Government Press, Rampur.

10. Apparently, there has been violation of Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules as there happens to be no oral inquiry conducted as the same is also not forthcoming.

11. On a pointed query being raised to the learned Standing Counsel whether any oral inquiry was conducted, his answer is in negative.

12. Bearing the fact that oral inquiry has not been conducted and the writ petitioner alleges that he has not been served with the chargesheet, the proceedings cannot be continued.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner: (a). The order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Director, Printing & Stationery, U.P, Prayagraj imposing the punishment of censure and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is set aside. (b) The passing of the order today would not preclude the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry.

14. In case, the disciplinary authority proceeds to conduct inquiry then the same be conducted and concluded within a period of four months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order subject to cooperation of the party.

15. Since the writ petitioner stood attached to Government Press, Rampur during the period when he was placed under suspension and now the punishment order has been set aside, thus, it shall be open for the authorities to take a fresh decision regarding posting of the writ petitioner.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 4 WRIA No. 15520 of 2025

17. Instructions have been filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A. October 28, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.)