Arvind Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Labor Deptt.Govt.Of Up Lko.Andors

(1) Heard Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh & Mr. Vishram Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties, (2) Petition has been filed challenging punishment order dated 07.07.2010 whereby petitioner has been reverted to the post of Junior Clerk while withholding salary for the period of his absence. Also under challenge is the order dated 15.04.2011 inflicting minor penalty of stoppage of increments for a period of two years and censure. Petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 31.03.2016 rejecting petitioner's appeal. (3) It has been submitted that initially petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 23.10.2009 containing primary allegation that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty for the periods mentioned therein. Another charge levelled was that he used to attend office in an inebriated condition. It is submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid charge sheet, petitioner submitted his reply denying the said charges whereafter enquiry report dated

30.01.2010 was submitted finding petitioner guilty but without holding proper enquiry inasmuch as no oral enquiry whatsoever was held. (4) It is also submitted that subsequently, another order for preliminary enquiry was issued on 16.02.2010 with the allegation that proper entries were not being made with regard to deductions of G.P.F. advances of various employees in the department. With regard to the said order, petitioner submitted his reply on 10.03.2010 indicating that entries could not 2 WRIA No. 9983 of 2016 be made inadvertently for which recoveries may be made from him. (5) It is also submitted that a show cause notice dated 30.03.2010 was issued thereafter with another allegation that petitioner was instrumental in excess payment to one Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya, Senior Clerk and admitted by him in letter dated 10.03.2010 and therefore why he may not be reverted. (6) It is also submitted that another show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 25.11.2010 pertaining to allegation of petitioner attending office in an inebriated condition. The said charge resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 15.04.2011. (7) It has been submitted that none of the proceedings taken against petitioner were in accordance with Service Regulations inasmuch as major penalty has been imposed upon petitioner without following due process as indicated in Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is submitted that a perusal of the enquiry report will indicate that no oral enquiry whatsoever was held and petitioner has been recommended as guilty with regard to charges levelled against him only upon perusal of material by the enquiry officer. (8) With regard to withholding of salary of petitioner for a period of unauthorized absence, it is submitted that subsequently vide order dated

29.04.2024, salary for aforesaid period of absence has already been sanctioned and therefore challenge to that extent is being withdrawn. (9) With regard to imposition of minor penalty, it has been submitted that a perusal of enquiry report dated 10.03.2011 will make it evident that same was submitted finding petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him on the basis of statements of employees, namely, Mr. Vinay Katiyar, Mr. Neeraj Shukla, Mr. B.M. Singh and Mr. Ajai Kumar Gupta being recorded without giving any opportunity to petitioner for their cross-examination. It is submitted that no medical evidence was called for to substantiate allegation against petitioner that he attended office in an inebriated condition. (10) It is also submitted that appellate order as well cannot stand scrutiny in view of the fact that none of the aforesaid aspects have been considered by the appellate authority and order has been passed merely on the alleged admission of petitioner dated 10.03.2010 with regard to charge levelled against him of having admitted to not posting entries in the ledger. It is 3 WRIA No. 9983 of 2016 submitted that a perusal of letter dated 10.03.2010 will make it evident that the admission pertained only to negligence and not any deliberate attempt of petitioner with regard to charge levelled against him and even otherwise was only with regard to imposition of penalty. It is submitted that aforesaid impugned order with regard to said charge has been passed without any enquiry process and without even issuing any charge sheet to petitioner but only on the basis of a report. It is therefore submitted that negligence cannot be construed as misconduct by the opposite parties for which punishment cannot be imposed. (11) Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of counter and supplementary counter affidavits. It has been submitted that as indicated here-in-above, petitioner was issued three charge sheets with regard to allegations levelled against him and adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to petitioner and it was only after examining reply that the authority concerned found charges established against petitioner on the basis of enquiry reports which were submitted. It is also submitted that once petitioner admitted charges levelled against him vide letter dated 10.03.2010, there was no further need of any enquiry in the aforesaid aspect and impugned order pertaining to same has been passed in the light of admission made by petitioner. (12) Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that petitioner was served with one charge sheet and show cause notices pertaining primarily to charges of unauthorized absence from office, negligence in posting entries in the ledger for purposes of recovery of payment of General Provident Fund to employees, excess payment being made to one Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya due to incorrect entries by petitioner and of attending office in an inebriated condition. Enquiry reports with regard to same were submitted against petitioner finding him guilty of all charges levelled against him. (13) As has already been admitted by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of instructions that with regard to first charge, by means of subsequent order dated 29.04.2024, salary has been paid to petitioner for the period of unauthorized absence, therefore, same is not being adjudicated upon without any adverse effect upon benefit granted to petitioner. (14) So far as aspect of major penalty being imposed upon petitioner is 4 WRIA No. 9983 of 2016 concerned, same pertains to the charge sheet dated 23.10.2009 which primarily indicates two charges of unauthorized absence and attending office in an inebriated condition and not completing task allocated to him for the past two years. (15) With regard to the aforesaid charge sheet, enquiry report dated

30.01.2010 was submitted and a perusal thereof clearly indicates the aspect that the enquiry report has been submitted only considering reply submitted by petitioner and without holding any oral enquiry worth the name. Evidently, procedure established for holding of enquiry proceedings for imposition of major penalty as indicated in Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 has not been followed. Documentary evidence has been considered by the Enquiry Officer without corroboration of the same. (16) With regard to other show cause notices against petitioner and enquiry reports submitted thereafter, it is evident that petitioner has been found guilty of attending office in an inebriated condition. The enquiry report dated

10.03.2011 clearly indicates names of four persons who were employees in the department and whose statements form the basis of allegations being established against petitioner. However, the said enquiry report also does not indicate any opportunity of cross-examination having been provided to petitioner. Although the punishment imposed is only minor in nature with regard to said enquiry report, but in the considered opinion of this Court, once the enquiry proceedings were held and statements of witnesses were recorded during enquiry proceedings, which form the basis of enquiry report, it was incumbent upon enquiry officer to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid persons. It is also evident from the enquiry report that allegations of petitioner being inebriated have been found established without any medical evidence being brought on record. (17) In view of the discussions made here-in-above, it is quite evident that procedure as required to be followed not only in terms of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 but also with regard to principles of natural justice have not been followed at all by the officials. The said aspect is glaringly evident from the show cause notice dated 16.02.2010 whereby only 24 hours' time was given to the Enquiry Officer to complete preliminary enquiry proceedings and report itself was submitted on the very next day, i.e., 17.02.2010 which forms the basis of the impugned order, without any full fledged enquiry. 5 WRIA No. 9983 of 2016 (18) Considering the aforesaid discussion, it being evident that enquiry proceedings have not been conducted in accordance with statutory provisions or even rules pertaining to principles of natural justice, this Court finds enquiry proceedings to be vitiated. (19) It is also evident that the impugned orders of punishment have been passed based on the aforesaid enquiry reports. (20) The appellate order also reveals that the aforesaid aspects have not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority and there is no mention of lacuna in the enquiry proceedings. (21) Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned punishment orders dated 07.04.2010 and 15.04.2011 as well as appellate order dated

31.03.2016 are hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. Consequences to follow. (22) Since it has been submitted that petitioner has superannuated from service in the meantime, liberty is granted to the opposite parties, if they so desire, to conduct enquiry afresh against petitioner in terms of relevant Rules and Regulations applicable upon petitioner and in accordance with principles of natural justice. This order is being passed without adjudicating upon order dated 29.04.2024 whereby salary for unauthorized absence has already been granted to petitioner. (23) Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 27, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

(1) Heard Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh & Mr. Vishram Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties, (2) Petition has been filed challenging punishment order dated 07.07.2010 whereby petitioner has been reverted to the post of Junior Clerk while withholding salary for the period of his absence. Also under challenge is the order dated 15.04.2011 inflicting minor penalty of stoppage of increments for a period of two years and censure. Petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 31.03.2016 rejecting petitioner's appeal. (3) It has been submitted that initially petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 23.10.2009 containing primary allegation that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty for the periods mentioned therein. Another charge levelled was that he used to attend office in an inebriated condition. It is submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid charge sheet, petitioner submitted his reply denying the said charges whereafter enquiry report dated

30.01.2010 was submitted finding petitioner guilty but without holding proper enquiry inasmuch as no oral enquiry whatsoever was held. (4) It is also submitted that subsequently, another order for preliminary enquiry was issued on 16.02.2010 with the allegation that proper entries were not being made with regard to deductions of G.P.F. advances of various employees in the department. With regard to the said order, petitioner submitted his reply on 10.03.2010 indicating that entries could not 2 WRIA No. 9983 of 2016 be made inadvertently for which recoveries may be made from him. (5) It is also submitted that a show cause notice dated 30.03.2010 was issued thereafter with another allegation that petitioner was instrumental in excess payment to one Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya, Senior Clerk and admitted by him in letter dated 10.03.2010 and therefore why he may not be reverted. (6) It is also submitted that another show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 25.11.2010 pertaining to allegation of petitioner attending office in an inebriated condition. The said charge resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 15.04.2011. (7) It has been submitted that none of the proceedings taken against petitioner were in accordance with Service Regulations inasmuch as major penalty has been imposed upon petitioner without following due process as indicated in Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is submitted that a perusal of the enquiry report will indicate that no oral enquiry whatsoever was held and petitioner has been recommended as guilty with regard to charges levelled against him only upon perusal of material by the enquiry officer. (8) With regard to withholding of salary of petitioner for a period of unauthorized absence, it is submitted that subsequently vide order dated

29.04.2024, salary for aforesaid period of absence has already been sanctioned and therefore challenge to that extent is being withdrawn. (9) With regard to imposition of minor penalty, it has been submitted that a perusal of enquiry report dated 10.03.2011 will make it evident that same was submitted finding petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him on the basis of statements of employees, namely, Mr. Vinay Katiyar, Mr. Neeraj Shukla, Mr. B.M. Singh and Mr. Ajai Kumar Gupta being recorded without giving any opportunity to petitioner for their cross-examination. It is submitted that no medical evidence was called for to substantiate allegation against petitioner that he attended office in an inebriated condition. (10) It is also submitted that appellate order as well cannot stand scrutiny in view of the fact that none of the aforesaid aspects have been considered by the appellate authority and order has been passed merely on the alleged admission of petitioner dated 10.03.2010 with regard to charge levelled against him of having admitted to not posting entries in the ledger. It is 3 WRIA No. 9983 of 2016 submitted that a perusal of letter dated 10.03.2010 will make it evident that the admission pertained only to negligence and not any deliberate attempt of petitioner with regard to charge levelled against him and even otherwise was only with regard to imposition of penalty. It is submitted that aforesaid impugned order with regard to said charge has been passed without any enquiry process and without even issuing any charge sheet to petitioner but only on the basis of a report. It is therefore submitted that negligence cannot be construed as misconduct by the opposite parties for which punishment cannot be imposed. (11) Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of counter and supplementary counter affidavits. It has been submitted that as indicated here-in-above, petitioner was issued three charge sheets with regard to allegations levelled against him and adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to petitioner and it was only after examining reply that the authority concerned found charges established against petitioner on the basis of enquiry reports which were submitted. It is also submitted that once petitioner admitted charges levelled against him vide letter dated 10.03.2010, there was no further need of any enquiry in the aforesaid aspect and impugned order pertaining to same has been passed in the light of admission made by petitioner. (12) Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that petitioner was served with one charge sheet and show cause notices pertaining primarily to charges of unauthorized absence from office, negligence in posting entries in the ledger for purposes of recovery of payment of General Provident Fund to employees, excess payment being made to one Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya due to incorrect entries by petitioner and of attending office in an inebriated condition. Enquiry reports with regard to same were submitted against petitioner finding him guilty of all charges levelled against him. (13) As has already been admitted by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of instructions that with regard to first charge, by means of subsequent order dated 29.04.2024, salary has been paid to petitioner for the period of unauthorized absence, therefore, same is not being adjudicated upon without any adverse effect upon benefit granted to petitioner. (14) So far as aspect of major penalty being imposed upon petitioner is 4 WRIA No. 9983 of 2016 concerned, same pertains to the charge sheet dated 23.10.2009 which primarily indicates two charges of unauthorized absence and attending office in an inebriated condition and not completing task allocated to him for the past two years. (15) With regard to the aforesaid charge sheet, enquiry report dated

30.01.2010 was submitted and a perusal thereof clearly indicates the aspect that the enquiry report has been submitted only considering reply submitted by petitioner and without holding any oral enquiry worth the name. Evidently, procedure established for holding of enquiry proceedings for imposition of major penalty as indicated in Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 has not been followed. Documentary evidence has been considered by the Enquiry Officer without corroboration of the same. (16) With regard to other show cause notices against petitioner and enquiry reports submitted thereafter, it is evident that petitioner has been found guilty of attending office in an inebriated condition. The enquiry report dated

10.03.2011 clearly indicates names of four persons who were employees in the department and whose statements form the basis of allegations being established against petitioner. However, the said enquiry report also does not indicate any opportunity of cross-examination having been provided to petitioner. Although the punishment imposed is only minor in nature with regard to said enquiry report, but in the considered opinion of this Court, once the enquiry proceedings were held and statements of witnesses were recorded during enquiry proceedings, which form the basis of enquiry report, it was incumbent upon enquiry officer to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid persons. It is also evident from the enquiry report that allegations of petitioner being inebriated have been found established without any medical evidence being brought on record. (17) In view of the discussions made here-in-above, it is quite evident that procedure as required to be followed not only in terms of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 but also with regard to principles of natural justice have not been followed at all by the officials. The said aspect is glaringly evident from the show cause notice dated 16.02.2010 whereby only 24 hours' time was given to the Enquiry Officer to complete preliminary enquiry proceedings and report itself was submitted on the very next day, i.e., 17.02.2010 which forms the basis of the impugned order, without any full fledged enquiry. 5 WRIA No. 9983 of 2016 (18) Considering the aforesaid discussion, it being evident that enquiry proceedings have not been conducted in accordance with statutory provisions or even rules pertaining to principles of natural justice, this Court finds enquiry proceedings to be vitiated. (19) It is also evident that the impugned orders of punishment have been passed based on the aforesaid enquiry reports. (20) The appellate order also reveals that the aforesaid aspects have not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority and there is no mention of lacuna in the enquiry proceedings. (21) Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned punishment orders dated 07.04.2010 and 15.04.2011 as well as appellate order dated

31.03.2016 are hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. Consequences to follow. (22) Since it has been submitted that petitioner has superannuated from service in the meantime, liberty is granted to the opposite parties, if they so desire, to conduct enquiry afresh against petitioner in terms of relevant Rules and Regulations applicable upon petitioner and in accordance with principles of natural justice. This order is being passed without adjudicating upon order dated 29.04.2024 whereby salary for unauthorized absence has already been granted to petitioner. (23) Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 27, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench