High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main relief: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order impugned dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure No.1) and 20.06.2016 (Annexure no.2) passed by the opposite party no.2 and 3. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the withheld post retiral dues with 12% interest within stipulated time. iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay all the deducted salary with 12% interest within stipulated time. iv. . issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restrain to proceed any further action in pursuance to the letter dated 30.08.2024 passed by opposite party no.4. v. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to grant notional promotion on the post of Chief Engineer leveled - II to the petitioner from the date when the juniors of the petitioner were granted and revise the monthly pay / pension."

3. By means of order dated 30.12.2024 the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. By means of order dated 20.06.2016 the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of censure, withholding of one increment temporarily and recovery of Rs 55.22 lakhs. 2 WRIA No. 1380 of 2025

4. The short question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a chargesheet dated 05.12.2013 and a supplementary chargesheet dated 03.07.2014, copies of which are annexures 9 and 15 to the writ petition, were issued. The charges were sought to be proved against the petitioner on the basis of documents as detailed in the said chargesheet. However no witness were cited in the said chargesheets. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. However without holding any oral inquiry the impugned punishment order was passed and the appeal filed against the same has been rejected. Placing reliance on division bench judgement and order of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal vs U.P. Coopertive Federation Ltd and another, 2013 (5) ALJ 478 the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though no witnesses were indicated in the two chargesheet that were issued to the petitioner yet as the charges to be proved by means of documentary evidence, were sought consequently even if the petitioner did not cite any witness in support of his case, the respondents were required to prove the charges against the petitioner by proving the documents which were sought to be read against him. However a perusal of the inquiry report as served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 19.05.2014 and 18.09.2014, copies of which are annexures 12 and 17 to the writ petition, would indicate that nobody appear to prove the said documents and the respondent inquiry officer has simply proved the charges against the petitioner without holding any oral inquiry. It is thus contended that the orders impugned are patently bad in the eyes of law.

5. On the other hand, Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 has supported the order impugned by contending that letter had been issued to the petitioner to submit his list of witnesses and the documents over which he was seeking to place reliance for the purpose of defence of his case but the petitioner failed to do so. Consequently the inquiry officer proceeded on the basis of the materials which were on record.

6. He further states that as no witnesses were cited in both the chargesheets as issued to the petitioner as such there was no occasion for examining any witnesses in support of charges which were levelled against the petitioner and even the petitioner has failed to indicate as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of no witness being examined in support of charges. It is thus prayed that writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 WRIA No. 1380 of 2025

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that while the petitioner was in service a chargesheet dated 05.12.2013 and a supplementary chargesheet dated 03.07.2014 were issued. Both the chargesheets did not indicate any witness in support of charges which were levelled against the petitioner rather the charge sheets indicated documentary evidence. Despite the petitioner being called upon to submit the documents over which he sought to place reliance or any witnesses that he wished to be summoned, he failed to do so. Consequently the inquiry officer proceeded on the basis of the materials which were before him and by means of inquiry report as indicated above held the charges proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the same the disciplinary authority has punished the petitioner vide order impugned dated 20.06.2016 and the appeal has also been rejected vide order dated 30.12.2024.

8. Admittedly, no oral hearing has taken place. The same is sought to be defended by the respondents on the ground that neither witnesses were cited by the petitioner nor any documents were sought to be placed reliance on by the petitioner consequently there was no occasion for holding of an oral inquiry and further no prejudice has been indicated by the petitioner in not holding of any oral inquiry.

9. The aforesaid argument on the part of the respondents is found to be fallacious and misconceived and is rejected. The reason is not far to seek. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal (supra) has held as under; "27. From the perusal of the enquiry report it is demonstrably proved that no oral evidence has been led by the department. When a major punishment is proposed to be passed the department has to prove the charges against the delinquent/employee by examining the witnesses and by documentary evidence. In the present case no witness was examined by the department neither any officer has been examined to prove the documents in the proceedings.

28. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in the enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case the 4 WRIA No. 1380 of 2025 charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary.

29. We may hasten to add that the a above mentioned law is subject to certain exception. When the facts are admitted or no real prejudice has been caused to employee or no other conclusion is possible, in such situation the order shall not be vitiated. Reference may be made to the some of the decision of Supreme Court in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India reported AIR 1984 SC 273; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma reported AIR 1996 SC 1669 and Biecco Lawrie Ltd v. West Bengal reported (2009) 10 SCC 32.

30. In the present case the stand taken by the respondent are that the petitioner inspite of the opportunity given to him did not participate in the inquiry. Even if the said statement is assumed to be correct the obligation on the department to prove the charges is not discharged." (Emphasis by Court)

10. Perusal of judgement of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal (supra) indicates that the Division Bench of this Court has held that there is an obligation cast on the department to prove the charges against the delinquent employee. Even if an employee prefers not to participate in the inquiry the department has to establish charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence and an officer has to be examined to prove the documents in the proceedings.

11. In the instant case, although both the chargesheets i.e. chargesheet dated 05.12.2013 and 03.07.2014 specifically cited the documents which were sought to be read against the petitioner yet admittedly no person was produced by the respondents to prove the said documents. Suffice to state that not only the respondents are required to prove the charges against the delinquent employee rather an obligation is cast on the department to prove the charges on the basis of the material before it. In this case, once the documents were sought to be read against the petitioner some witness should have been called by the respondents in order to prove the said documents which incidentally has not been done by the respondents.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the orders impugned are patently bad in the eyes of law. Consequently, the writ petition impugned dated 03.12.2024 and 20.06.2016, copies of which are annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition, are set-aside. Consequences to follow. is allowed. The orders 5 WRIA No. 1380 of 2025

13. However, it is open for the respondents to continue the inquiry from the stage of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and by holding an inquiry in accordance with law and the relevant rules. As the petitioner is said to have retired from service on 31.01.2021 as such in case the respondents decide to hold the inquiry the same shall be held and concluded in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

14. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry proceedings. In case of non-cooperation, a letter shall be issued by the inquiry officer indicating non-cooperation of the petitioner and the number of days on which the petitioner does not cooperate shall be excluded from the aforesaid time period. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main relief: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order impugned dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure No.1) and 20.06.2016 (Annexure no.2) passed by the opposite party no.2 and 3. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the withheld post retiral dues with 12% interest within stipulated time. iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay all the deducted salary with 12% interest within stipulated time. iv. . issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restrain to proceed any further action in pursuance to the letter dated 30.08.2024 passed by opposite party no.4. v. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to grant notional promotion on the post of Chief Engineer leveled - II to the petitioner from the date when the juniors of the petitioner were granted and revise the monthly pay / pension."

3. By means of order dated 30.12.2024 the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. By means of order dated 20.06.2016 the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of censure, withholding of one increment temporarily and recovery of Rs 55.22 lakhs. 2 WRIA No. 1380 of 2025

4. The short question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a chargesheet dated 05.12.2013 and a supplementary chargesheet dated 03.07.2014, copies of which are annexures 9 and 15 to the writ petition, were issued. The charges were sought to be proved against the petitioner on the basis of documents as detailed in the said chargesheet. However no witness were cited in the said chargesheets. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. However without holding any oral inquiry the impugned punishment order was passed and the appeal filed against the same has been rejected. Placing reliance on division bench judgement and order of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal vs U.P. Coopertive Federation Ltd and another, 2013 (5) ALJ 478 the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though no witnesses were indicated in the two chargesheet that were issued to the petitioner yet as the charges to be proved by means of documentary evidence, were sought consequently even if the petitioner did not cite any witness in support of his case, the respondents were required to prove the charges against the petitioner by proving the documents which were sought to be read against him. However a perusal of the inquiry report as served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 19.05.2014 and 18.09.2014, copies of which are annexures 12 and 17 to the writ petition, would indicate that nobody appear to prove the said documents and the respondent inquiry officer has simply proved the charges against the petitioner without holding any oral inquiry. It is thus contended that the orders impugned are patently bad in the eyes of law.

5. On the other hand, Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 has supported the order impugned by contending that letter had been issued to the petitioner to submit his list of witnesses and the documents over which he was seeking to place reliance for the purpose of defence of his case but the petitioner failed to do so. Consequently the inquiry officer proceeded on the basis of the materials which were on record.

6. He further states that as no witnesses were cited in both the chargesheets as issued to the petitioner as such there was no occasion for examining any witnesses in support of charges which were levelled against the petitioner and even the petitioner has failed to indicate as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of no witness being examined in support of charges. It is thus prayed that writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 WRIA No. 1380 of 2025

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that while the petitioner was in service a chargesheet dated 05.12.2013 and a supplementary chargesheet dated 03.07.2014 were issued. Both the chargesheets did not indicate any witness in support of charges which were levelled against the petitioner rather the charge sheets indicated documentary evidence. Despite the petitioner being called upon to submit the documents over which he sought to place reliance or any witnesses that he wished to be summoned, he failed to do so. Consequently the inquiry officer proceeded on the basis of the materials which were before him and by means of inquiry report as indicated above held the charges proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the same the disciplinary authority has punished the petitioner vide order impugned dated 20.06.2016 and the appeal has also been rejected vide order dated 30.12.2024.

8. Admittedly, no oral hearing has taken place. The same is sought to be defended by the respondents on the ground that neither witnesses were cited by the petitioner nor any documents were sought to be placed reliance on by the petitioner consequently there was no occasion for holding of an oral inquiry and further no prejudice has been indicated by the petitioner in not holding of any oral inquiry.

9. The aforesaid argument on the part of the respondents is found to be fallacious and misconceived and is rejected. The reason is not far to seek. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal (supra) has held as under; "27. From the perusal of the enquiry report it is demonstrably proved that no oral evidence has been led by the department. When a major punishment is proposed to be passed the department has to prove the charges against the delinquent/employee by examining the witnesses and by documentary evidence. In the present case no witness was examined by the department neither any officer has been examined to prove the documents in the proceedings.

28. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in the enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case the 4 WRIA No. 1380 of 2025 charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary.

29. We may hasten to add that the a above mentioned law is subject to certain exception. When the facts are admitted or no real prejudice has been caused to employee or no other conclusion is possible, in such situation the order shall not be vitiated. Reference may be made to the some of the decision of Supreme Court in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India reported AIR 1984 SC 273; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma reported AIR 1996 SC 1669 and Biecco Lawrie Ltd v. West Bengal reported (2009) 10 SCC 32.

30. In the present case the stand taken by the respondent are that the petitioner inspite of the opportunity given to him did not participate in the inquiry. Even if the said statement is assumed to be correct the obligation on the department to prove the charges is not discharged." (Emphasis by Court)

10. Perusal of judgement of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal (supra) indicates that the Division Bench of this Court has held that there is an obligation cast on the department to prove the charges against the delinquent employee. Even if an employee prefers not to participate in the inquiry the department has to establish charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence and an officer has to be examined to prove the documents in the proceedings.

11. In the instant case, although both the chargesheets i.e. chargesheet dated 05.12.2013 and 03.07.2014 specifically cited the documents which were sought to be read against the petitioner yet admittedly no person was produced by the respondents to prove the said documents. Suffice to state that not only the respondents are required to prove the charges against the delinquent employee rather an obligation is cast on the department to prove the charges on the basis of the material before it. In this case, once the documents were sought to be read against the petitioner some witness should have been called by the respondents in order to prove the said documents which incidentally has not been done by the respondents.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the orders impugned are patently bad in the eyes of law. Consequently, the writ petition impugned dated 03.12.2024 and 20.06.2016, copies of which are annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition, are set-aside. Consequences to follow. is allowed. The orders 5 WRIA No. 1380 of 2025

13. However, it is open for the respondents to continue the inquiry from the stage of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and by holding an inquiry in accordance with law and the relevant rules. As the petitioner is said to have retired from service on 31.01.2021 as such in case the respondents decide to hold the inquiry the same shall be held and concluded in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

14. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry proceedings. In case of non-cooperation, a letter shall be issued by the inquiry officer indicating non-cooperation of the petitioner and the number of days on which the petitioner does not cooperate shall be excluded from the aforesaid time period. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench