High Court · 2025

have been given in the writ petition.

4. Sri Hemendra Pratap has submitted that earlier the similar punishment order dated 12.10.2022 was issued against the petitioner without conducting the departmental inquiry strictly in accordance with law by not fixing date, time and place for oral inquiry. That punishment order was challenged by filing Writ-A No. 553 of 2023 and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2023, which reads as under:- "Heard counsel for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and has been awarded a punishment of censure and it is also been stated that the petitioner would not be placed at any important place. The contentions in brief are that the petitioner was appointed with the respondent on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and was subsequently transferred to Moradabad Development Authority and, thereafter, to Ghaziabad Development Authority on 28.12.2017. It is stated that while the petitioner was employed with the Ghaziabad Development Authority, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.08.2018 and the Commissioner, Meerut Division was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. It is on record that on 25.10.2018, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet as contained in annexure no.4 to the writ petition wherein as many as three charges were leveled against the petitioner. In the charge-sheet, the evidence proposed to be relied upon against the petitioner was also mentioned. On 24.12.2018, the petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges (Annexure no.6). It is stated that thereafter the petitioner was never involved or informed about any date by the Inquiry Officer and after conclusion of the inquiry proceeding, the said report of the Inquiry Officer was made available on 24.12.2020 and the petitioner was also given a show cause notice to give a reply to the same. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same on 03.09.2021 and was also accorded a personal hearing. During the pendency of the hearing the petitioner was reinstated after recall of his suspension on 19.01.2022 and, thereafter, on 12.10.2022 the impugned order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are to be conducted in terms of the provisions of U.P Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1999. He argues that Rule 7 of the said rules prescribes for the procedure to be followed by the Inquiry Officer. He further argues that the Inquiry Officer conducted an inquiry de-hors to the Rule 7 in so far as he never even fixed any time, date and place for conducting the inquiry. He takes me through the inquiry report, which is on record, to demonstrate that there was no evidence led with regard to the evidence as proposed to be relied upon in the charge-sheet. On the basis of the said allegation leveled in the writ petition, this Court had directed the respondent to take instructions. The standing counsel has produced the instructions to show that before the inquiry officer, the statement was made by the petitioner on 16.12.2021 to the effect that he has nothing to say accept what has been said in the reply submitted by the petitioner. The instructions are silent with regard to the specific inquiry as to whether any time, place and date was fixed by the inquiry officer. In the light of the said statement given by the petitioner, the standing counsel argues that as the petitioner had nothing to say beyond what he had stated in the reply to the charge-sheet, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to hold the inquiry and concluded the same, which ultimately led to the passing of the order which is impugned in the present writ petition. Considering the submission made at the Bar and mandate of Rule 7 of the U.P Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules of 1999, which clearly specifies the manner in which the inquiry has to be conducted, should be followed by the Inquiry Officer irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner leads any evidence or not. The charges leveled in the charge-sheet have to be decided/ proved on the basis of the evidence as proposed to be relied upon and as disclosed in the charge-sheet. The perusal of the inquiry Report which is on record does not demonstrate that any of the evidence proposed to be relied upon was either proved or even considered by the Inquiry Officer. The inquiry report records the charges, the submission of the petitioner and abruptly concludes the charges to be proved. The said procedure is clearly contrary to the mandate of Rule 7 and even otherwise, is also violative of the principle of nature justice as it is well settled that the charges have to be established on the evidence and merely because no reply is filed or no evidence is led by the employee, the conclusion cannot be drawn that the charges have been proved. In the instructions, there is nothing forthcoming to demonstrate that the Inquiry Officer had fixed any time, place and date after informing the petitioner, thus on that count also, the inquiry concluded against the petitioner is in violation of principle of natural justice. Thus, on both the counts, the Inquiry Report which has led to passing of the impugned order cannot be justified. As such the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 as well as Inquiry Report dated 16.10.2020 as contained in annexure no.7 to the writ petition are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent, who shall conduct the inquiry from the stage of filing of the reply to the charge-sheet by the petitioner. The petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry. Needless to say, that the inquiry shall be concluded and steps thereafter shall also be taken strictly in terms of the mandate of the 1999 Rules. The respondents shall make endeavour to decide the matter de novo as directed above within a period of four months subject to the petitioner cooperating."

5. Notably, the aforesaid petition was allowed for the reason that the Inquiry Officer had not fixed any date, time and place to conduct the oral inquiry, therefore, the impugned order dated

12.10.2022 and inquiry report dated 16.10.2020 (in that petition) was set-aside and matter was remanded back to the competent authority to conduct the denovo inquiry from the stage of defect. In compliance of the aforesaid order the sham departmental inquiry was conducted inasmuch as no date, time and place was again fixed to conduct the oral inquiry and the inquiry report dated 16.10.2023 was submitted before the disciplinary authority who called explanation from the petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order dated 06.09.2024.

6. Sri Hemendra Pratap has stated that even the specific direction being issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated

08.02.2023 to conduct denovo inquiry strictly in accordance with law, the Inquiry Officer has not conducted inquiry strictly in accordance with law by fixing date, time and place to conduct oral inquiry to prove the charges inasmuch as this is the sole responsibility of the department to prove the charges against the charged employee, even if, he/she does not participate in the inquiry proceeding. Sri Hemendra Pratap has drawn attention of this Court towards the inquiry report which has been enclosed with the petitioner as Annexure-12 and perusal thereof reveals that the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry only on the basis of defence reply and additional defence reply filed by the petitioner without fixing any date, time and place to conduct the oral inquiry.

7. Though, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has requested that he may be given some time to file counter affidavit to seek instructions as to whether any date, time and place has been fixed to conduct the oral inquiry, but the aforesaid defect is apparent on the face of the record, more particularly on the inquiry report, therefore no purpose would be served if some time is given to file counter affidavit. Had the oral inquiry been conducted by the Inquiry Officer fixing date, time and place to prove the charges, the specific recitals to this effect must have been given in the findings of the inquiry report but no such recitals have been given in the inquiry report, therefore, it is prima facie clear that Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry strictly in accordance with law.

8. Besides, Sri Hemendra Pratap has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment of Apex Court in re: Union of India and another vs. S. C. Parashar; Civil Appeal No.1267 of 2006, wherein the Apex Court has held that by means of one punishment order major and minor punishment may not be awarded. Therefore, Sri Hemendra Pratap has stated that if the manner of doing of a particular act is prescribed under any statute that act must be done in that manner. It is evident that the charges levelled on being denied in breach of Rule-7(VII) of 1999 Rules without conducting any inquiry, the inquiry report has been framed the basis calling for submissions on the said as per Rule-9(4) of 1999 Rules personal hearing thereafter provided the order passed without considering the submissions in breach of provisions of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, all exercise carried out being nullity, the impugned order of date 06.09.2024 (Annexure-1) being wholly illegal cannot be sustained.

9. Per contra, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned A.C.S.C. tried to defend the impugned order as well as inquiry report but he could not demonstrate from those orders as to how and when Inquiry Officer conducted the oral inquiry fixing date, time and place to prove the charges. However, he has requested that since no specific recitals have been given in the inquiry report to conduct the oral inquiry, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the Inquiry Officer to conduct the denovo inquiry from the stage of defect.

10. The aforesaid submissions has been objected by Sri Hemendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2023, this Court was pleased to remand back the matter to the Inquiry Officer to conduct the denovo inquiry strictly in accordance with law but no such inquiry has been conducted as per procedure prescribed, therefore the matter may not be again remanded back, in the interest of justice of the petitioner.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, one fact is very clear that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law by fixing the date, time and place for oral enquiry to prove the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are illegal inasmuch as such findings are based on the defective enquiry.

12. The Apex Court in the case in re: Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held that mere production of documents is not enough but the contents of the documentary evidence has to be proved by examining the witnesses fixing the date, time and place for oral enquiry. The Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) went to the extent that even if the delinquent employee confessed his guilt before the police relating to the same charge, so called confession itself would not be sufficient and some evidence ought to have been brought on record that the delinquent employee was involved in the offence in question. Since the department has levelled the charges against the delinquent employee, therefore, it is responsibility and duty of the department to prove those charges through oral enquiry.

13. The Apex Court in the case in re: State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 has reiterated the aforesaid proposition of law and held that if the Enquiry Officer has not fixed the date, time and place to conduct oral enquiry to examine the witnesses to prove the charges against the delinquent employee, the entire enquiry proceedings would be vitiated being violative of principles of natural justice and in total disregard of the fair play. Therefore, in that case, such enquiry report would be liable to be set aside/ quashed and the impugned punishment order, which is based upon the enquiry report, would also be liable to be set aside/ quashed.

14. Even if any opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, though the same has been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but that opportunity of personal hearing would not suffice the purpose inasmuch as even if the delinquent employee did not avail such opportunity of personal hearing, the Enquiry Officer will have to prove the charges against the employee examining the witnesses and the documents by fixing the date, time and place for oral enquiry. Notably, in the present case, no date time and place has been fixed by the Enquiry Officer to conduct oral enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner.

15. Since I am of the considered view that the impugned punishment order dated 06.09.2024, which has been issued on the basis of faulty enquiry report dated 16.10.2023, is non est in the eyes of law being violative of principles of natural justice, therefore, I also hold that the impugned punishment order and the enquiry report are non est in the eyes of law and no punishment order can be passed against the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid faulty enquiry report in view of legal maxim 'SUBLATO FUNDAMENTO CADIT OPUS'.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re; State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others connected with Sumedh Singh Saini Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 has considered the aforesaid maxim in paras- 107 to 111, which are being reproduced here-in-below:- "107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.

108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr,, (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.

109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.

110. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors, (2006) 1 SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi vs. State of Assam & Ors.,, (1998) 3 SCC 381; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors.,, (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari,, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823).

111. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a consequence, subsequent proceedings/ orders/ FIR/ investigation stand automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est."

17. In view of the aforesaid dictums of the Hon'ble Apex Court considered in re; Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned punishment order dated

06.09.2024 passed by the opposite party No.1, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, as well as the enquiry report dated 16.10.2023 are hereby set aside/ quashed in view of the legal maxim 'SUBLATO FUNDAMENTO CADIT OPUS'.

18. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parities and having perused the material available on record and also considering the cases cited by the parties, this is a case where the Inquiry Officer has not conducted the departmental inquiry strictly as per procedure so prescribed, more particularly no date, time and place was fixed to conduct the oral inquiry to prove the charges despite the fact that the matter was remanded back by this Court vide judgement and order dated 08.02.2023 to conduct the denovo inquiry strictly in accordance with law, therefore the inquiry report dated 16.10.2023 as well as the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 are liable to be set-aside/quashed.

19. Since, the matter was earlier remanded back to the respondents to conduct the denovo inquiry from the stage of defect but the aforesaid direction of this Court has not been followed and the inquiry has been concluded de-hors the rules and settled proposition of law, therefore, I do not find any good reason to remand back the issue to the respondents to conduct the denovo inquiry from the stage of defect. Hence, the impugned order dated

06.09.2024 (Annexure-1) is hereby set-aside/ quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential service benefits ignoring the impugned order dated 06.09.2024.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

21. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 18.4.2025/Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

have been given in the writ petition.

4. Sri Hemendra Pratap has submitted that earlier the similar punishment order dated 12.10.2022 was issued against the petitioner without conducting the departmental inquiry strictly in accordance with law by not fixing date, time and place for oral inquiry. That punishment order was challenged by filing Writ-A No. 553 of 2023 and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2023, which reads as under:- "Heard counsel for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and has been awarded a punishment of censure and it is also been stated that the petitioner would not be placed at any important place. The contentions in brief are that the petitioner was appointed with the respondent on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and was subsequently transferred to Moradabad Development Authority and, thereafter, to Ghaziabad Development Authority on 28.12.2017. It is stated that while the petitioner was employed with the Ghaziabad Development Authority, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.08.2018 and the Commissioner, Meerut Division was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. It is on record that on 25.10.2018, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet as contained in annexure no.4 to the writ petition wherein as many as three charges were leveled against the petitioner. In the charge-sheet, the evidence proposed to be relied upon against the petitioner was also mentioned. On 24.12.2018, the petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges (Annexure no.6). It is stated that thereafter the petitioner was never involved or informed about any date by the Inquiry Officer and after conclusion of the inquiry proceeding, the said report of the Inquiry Officer was made available on 24.12.2020 and the petitioner was also given a show cause notice to give a reply to the same. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same on 03.09.2021 and was also accorded a personal hearing. During the pendency of the hearing the petitioner was reinstated after recall of his suspension on 19.01.2022 and, thereafter, on 12.10.2022 the impugned order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are to be conducted in terms of the provisions of U.P Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1999. He argues that Rule 7 of the said rules prescribes for the procedure to be followed by the Inquiry Officer. He further argues that the Inquiry Officer conducted an inquiry de-hors to the Rule 7 in so far as he never even fixed any time, date and place for conducting the inquiry. He takes me through the inquiry report, which is on record, to demonstrate that there was no evidence led with regard to the evidence as proposed to be relied upon in the charge-sheet. On the basis of the said allegation leveled in the writ petition, this Court had directed the respondent to take instructions. The standing counsel has produced the instructions to show that before the inquiry officer, the statement was made by the petitioner on 16.12.2021 to the effect that he has nothing to say accept what has been said in the reply submitted by the petitioner. The instructions are silent with regard to the specific inquiry as to whether any time, place and date was fixed by the inquiry officer. In the light of the said statement given by the petitioner, the standing counsel argues that as the petitioner had nothing to say beyond what he had stated in the reply to the charge-sheet, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to hold the inquiry and concluded the same, which ultimately led to the passing of the order which is impugned in the present writ petition. Considering the submission made at the Bar and mandate of Rule 7 of the U.P Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules of 1999, which clearly specifies the manner in which the inquiry has to be conducted, should be followed by the Inquiry Officer irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner leads any evidence or not. The charges leveled in the charge-sheet have to be decided/ proved on the basis of the evidence as proposed to be relied upon and as disclosed in the charge-sheet. The perusal of the inquiry Report which is on record does not demonstrate that any of the evidence proposed to be relied upon was either proved or even considered by the Inquiry Officer. The inquiry report records the charges, the submission of the petitioner and abruptly concludes the charges to be proved. The said procedure is clearly contrary to the mandate of Rule 7 and even otherwise, is also violative of the principle of nature justice as it is well settled that the charges have to be established on the evidence and merely because no reply is filed or no evidence is led by the employee, the conclusion cannot be drawn that the charges have been proved. In the instructions, there is nothing forthcoming to demonstrate that the Inquiry Officer had fixed any time, place and date after informing the petitioner, thus on that count also, the inquiry concluded against the petitioner is in violation of principle of natural justice. Thus, on both the counts, the Inquiry Report which has led to passing of the impugned order cannot be justified. As such the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 as well as Inquiry Report dated 16.10.2020 as contained in annexure no.7 to the writ petition are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent, who shall conduct the inquiry from the stage of filing of the reply to the charge-sheet by the petitioner. The petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry. Needless to say, that the inquiry shall be concluded and steps thereafter shall also be taken strictly in terms of the mandate of the 1999 Rules. The respondents shall make endeavour to decide the matter de novo as directed above within a period of four months subject to the petitioner cooperating."

5. Notably, the aforesaid petition was allowed for the reason that the Inquiry Officer had not fixed any date, time and place to conduct the oral inquiry, therefore, the impugned order dated

12.10.2022 and inquiry report dated 16.10.2020 (in that petition) was set-aside and matter was remanded back to the competent authority to conduct the denovo inquiry from the stage of defect. In compliance of the aforesaid order the sham departmental inquiry was conducted inasmuch as no date, time and place was again fixed to conduct the oral inquiry and the inquiry report dated 16.10.2023 was submitted before the disciplinary authority who called explanation from the petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order dated 06.09.2024.

6. Sri Hemendra Pratap has stated that even the specific direction being issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated

08.02.2023 to conduct denovo inquiry strictly in accordance with law, the Inquiry Officer has not conducted inquiry strictly in accordance with law by fixing date, time and place to conduct oral inquiry to prove the charges inasmuch as this is the sole responsibility of the department to prove the charges against the charged employee, even if, he/she does not participate in the inquiry proceeding. Sri Hemendra Pratap has drawn attention of this Court towards the inquiry report which has been enclosed with the petitioner as Annexure-12 and perusal thereof reveals that the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry only on the basis of defence reply and additional defence reply filed by the petitioner without fixing any date, time and place to conduct the oral inquiry.

7. Though, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has requested that he may be given some time to file counter affidavit to seek instructions as to whether any date, time and place has been fixed to conduct the oral inquiry, but the aforesaid defect is apparent on the face of the record, more particularly on the inquiry report, therefore no purpose would be served if some time is given to file counter affidavit. Had the oral inquiry been conducted by the Inquiry Officer fixing date, time and place to prove the charges, the specific recitals to this effect must have been given in the findings of the inquiry report but no such recitals have been given in the inquiry report, therefore, it is prima facie clear that Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry strictly in accordance with law.

8. Besides, Sri Hemendra Pratap has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment of Apex Court in re: Union of India and another vs. S. C. Parashar; Civil Appeal No.1267 of 2006, wherein the Apex Court has held that by means of one punishment order major and minor punishment may not be awarded. Therefore, Sri Hemendra Pratap has stated that if the manner of doing of a particular act is prescribed under any statute that act must be done in that manner. It is evident that the charges levelled on being denied in breach of Rule-7(VII) of 1999 Rules without conducting any inquiry, the inquiry report has been framed the basis calling for submissions on the said as per Rule-9(4) of 1999 Rules personal hearing thereafter provided the order passed without considering the submissions in breach of provisions of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, all exercise carried out being nullity, the impugned order of date 06.09.2024 (Annexure-1) being wholly illegal cannot be sustained.

9. Per contra, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned A.C.S.C. tried to defend the impugned order as well as inquiry report but he could not demonstrate from those orders as to how and when Inquiry Officer conducted the oral inquiry fixing date, time and place to prove the charges. However, he has requested that since no specific recitals have been given in the inquiry report to conduct the oral inquiry, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the Inquiry Officer to conduct the denovo inquiry from the stage of defect.

10. The aforesaid submissions has been objected by Sri Hemendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2023, this Court was pleased to remand back the matter to the Inquiry Officer to conduct the denovo inquiry strictly in accordance with law but no such inquiry has been conducted as per procedure prescribed, therefore the matter may not be again remanded back, in the interest of justice of the petitioner.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, one fact is very clear that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law by fixing the date, time and place for oral enquiry to prove the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are illegal inasmuch as such findings are based on the defective enquiry.

12. The Apex Court in the case in re: Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held that mere production of documents is not enough but the contents of the documentary evidence has to be proved by examining the witnesses fixing the date, time and place for oral enquiry. The Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) went to the extent that even if the delinquent employee confessed his guilt before the police relating to the same charge, so called confession itself would not be sufficient and some evidence ought to have been brought on record that the delinquent employee was involved in the offence in question. Since the department has levelled the charges against the delinquent employee, therefore, it is responsibility and duty of the department to prove those charges through oral enquiry.

13. The Apex Court in the case in re: State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 has reiterated the aforesaid proposition of law and held that if the Enquiry Officer has not fixed the date, time and place to conduct oral enquiry to examine the witnesses to prove the charges against the delinquent employee, the entire enquiry proceedings would be vitiated being violative of principles of natural justice and in total disregard of the fair play. Therefore, in that case, such enquiry report would be liable to be set aside/ quashed and the impugned punishment order, which is based upon the enquiry report, would also be liable to be set aside/ quashed.

14. Even if any opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, though the same has been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but that opportunity of personal hearing would not suffice the purpose inasmuch as even if the delinquent employee did not avail such opportunity of personal hearing, the Enquiry Officer will have to prove the charges against the employee examining the witnesses and the documents by fixing the date, time and place for oral enquiry. Notably, in the present case, no date time and place has been fixed by the Enquiry Officer to conduct oral enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner.

15. Since I am of the considered view that the impugned punishment order dated 06.09.2024, which has been issued on the basis of faulty enquiry report dated 16.10.2023, is non est in the eyes of law being violative of principles of natural justice, therefore, I also hold that the impugned punishment order and the enquiry report are non est in the eyes of law and no punishment order can be passed against the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid faulty enquiry report in view of legal maxim 'SUBLATO FUNDAMENTO CADIT OPUS'.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re; State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others connected with Sumedh Singh Saini Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 has considered the aforesaid maxim in paras- 107 to 111, which are being reproduced here-in-below:- "107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.

108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr,, (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.

109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.

110. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors, (2006) 1 SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi vs. State of Assam & Ors.,, (1998) 3 SCC 381; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors.,, (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari,, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823).

111. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a consequence, subsequent proceedings/ orders/ FIR/ investigation stand automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est."

17. In view of the aforesaid dictums of the Hon'ble Apex Court considered in re; Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned punishment order dated

06.09.2024 passed by the opposite party No.1, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, as well as the enquiry report dated 16.10.2023 are hereby set aside/ quashed in view of the legal maxim 'SUBLATO FUNDAMENTO CADIT OPUS'.

18. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parities and having perused the material available on record and also considering the cases cited by the parties, this is a case where the Inquiry Officer has not conducted the departmental inquiry strictly as per procedure so prescribed, more particularly no date, time and place was fixed to conduct the oral inquiry to prove the charges despite the fact that the matter was remanded back by this Court vide judgement and order dated 08.02.2023 to conduct the denovo inquiry strictly in accordance with law, therefore the inquiry report dated 16.10.2023 as well as the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 are liable to be set-aside/quashed.

19. Since, the matter was earlier remanded back to the respondents to conduct the denovo inquiry from the stage of defect but the aforesaid direction of this Court has not been followed and the inquiry has been concluded de-hors the rules and settled proposition of law, therefore, I do not find any good reason to remand back the issue to the respondents to conduct the denovo inquiry from the stage of defect. Hence, the impugned order dated

06.09.2024 (Annexure-1) is hereby set-aside/ quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential service benefits ignoring the impugned order dated 06.09.2024.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

21. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 18.4.2025/Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench