High Court · 2025

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a letter dated

24.01.2022 pertaining to retirement of the petitioner issued by the Tehsildar, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, which is taken on record.

3. In compliance of order dated 12.05.2025, office has reported that no counter affidavit has been filed in the Registry as per computer record, however, it is admitted by Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that he has received copy of the counter affidavit dated 16.12.2014 furnished by learned Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

4. This Court vide interim order dated 20.06.2005 stayed the operation of the impugned dismissal order dated 16.05.2002 and it appears that the petitioner was allowed to continue his services and he was superannuated on 30.06.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working on the post of Lekhpal, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow. The said suspension order has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing writ petition bearing No.445 (SS) of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.04.2004 with a direction that enquiry against the petitioner shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of a certified copy of this order is served upon the opposite parties and final order shall be passed within a month thereafter.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 24.01.2004, to which he submitted reply on 22.03.2004 denying all the charges with a prayer that he may be informed date, time and place for holding enquiry and he may also be permitted to cross-examine the evidences cited in the charge sheet and to lead evidence in his defence as well as to afford an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, on 04.05.2004, the petitioner was served with a show case notice dated 30.04.2004, without annexing copy of report of the inquiry officer. He also submits that this Court vide interim order dated 20.06.2005 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 16.05.2005 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service and on

30.06.2021 he has retired.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that enquiry officer did not fix any date, time and place for holding the enquiry nor any witness was examined to prove the charges. The enquiry officer has not acted impartially and while conducting the departmental proceedings, he became agent of the management and prepared the enquiry report with prejudicial mind. Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 has submitted that the enquiry proceedings held in the present case are in utter violation of the aforesaid judgement. Submission is that enquiry was held behind back of the petitioner as no date, time and place was fixed for holding the enquiry nor any evidence was lead to prove the charges mentioned in the charge sheet nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner to prove his case.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the impugned punishment order has been passed after considering the enquiry report, reply submitted by the petitioner and the evidence on record, therefore, no interference is required by this Court.

9. I have heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.P. Singh for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties and perused the record.

10. After going through the record, it transpires that in paragraph-3 of the writ petition, a specific averment has been made that no date, time and place for holding inquiry or cross- examine the evidences was fixed by the inquiry officer and the inquiry was not conducted as per the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Reply to paragraph-3 of the writ petition has been given by the answering opposite party in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, but nowhere it is mentioned that any date, time and place was fixed by the inquiry officer and even there is no mention that petitioner was afforded any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

11. It is well settled law that an inquiry officer is a quasi judicial authority and he has to proceed with the inquiry very fairly and in a transparent manner and it is incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix date, time and place for holding the enquiry and also adduce evidence in support of the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. Further, the inquiry officer has to apply his mind independently and not like agent of department and even in absence of delinquent employee, he has to see whether the un-rebutted evidences to hold that the charges are proved and in case no oral enquiry is done or documents are proved, then it cannot be said that the enquiry was concluded after following the due procedure.

12. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar question in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) held as under:- “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.

29. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee.

30. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service."

13. Since the enquiry has been conducted by the inquiry officer without fixing any date, time and place and without adducing any evidence to prove the charges and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby ignoring the procedure prescribed in law and the impugned dismissal order has been passed on the basis of ex-parte enquiry report and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow is hereby quashed. Consequences will follow. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Anupam S/- (Brij Raj Singh, J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a letter dated

24.01.2022 pertaining to retirement of the petitioner issued by the Tehsildar, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, which is taken on record.

3. In compliance of order dated 12.05.2025, office has reported that no counter affidavit has been filed in the Registry as per computer record, however, it is admitted by Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that he has received copy of the counter affidavit dated 16.12.2014 furnished by learned Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

4. This Court vide interim order dated 20.06.2005 stayed the operation of the impugned dismissal order dated 16.05.2002 and it appears that the petitioner was allowed to continue his services and he was superannuated on 30.06.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working on the post of Lekhpal, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow. The said suspension order has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing writ petition bearing No.445 (SS) of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.04.2004 with a direction that enquiry against the petitioner shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of a certified copy of this order is served upon the opposite parties and final order shall be passed within a month thereafter.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 24.01.2004, to which he submitted reply on 22.03.2004 denying all the charges with a prayer that he may be informed date, time and place for holding enquiry and he may also be permitted to cross-examine the evidences cited in the charge sheet and to lead evidence in his defence as well as to afford an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, on 04.05.2004, the petitioner was served with a show case notice dated 30.04.2004, without annexing copy of report of the inquiry officer. He also submits that this Court vide interim order dated 20.06.2005 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 16.05.2005 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service and on

30.06.2021 he has retired.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that enquiry officer did not fix any date, time and place for holding the enquiry nor any witness was examined to prove the charges. The enquiry officer has not acted impartially and while conducting the departmental proceedings, he became agent of the management and prepared the enquiry report with prejudicial mind. Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 has submitted that the enquiry proceedings held in the present case are in utter violation of the aforesaid judgement. Submission is that enquiry was held behind back of the petitioner as no date, time and place was fixed for holding the enquiry nor any evidence was lead to prove the charges mentioned in the charge sheet nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner to prove his case.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the impugned punishment order has been passed after considering the enquiry report, reply submitted by the petitioner and the evidence on record, therefore, no interference is required by this Court.

9. I have heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.P. Singh for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties and perused the record.

10. After going through the record, it transpires that in paragraph-3 of the writ petition, a specific averment has been made that no date, time and place for holding inquiry or cross- examine the evidences was fixed by the inquiry officer and the inquiry was not conducted as per the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Reply to paragraph-3 of the writ petition has been given by the answering opposite party in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, but nowhere it is mentioned that any date, time and place was fixed by the inquiry officer and even there is no mention that petitioner was afforded any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

11. It is well settled law that an inquiry officer is a quasi judicial authority and he has to proceed with the inquiry very fairly and in a transparent manner and it is incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix date, time and place for holding the enquiry and also adduce evidence in support of the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. Further, the inquiry officer has to apply his mind independently and not like agent of department and even in absence of delinquent employee, he has to see whether the un-rebutted evidences to hold that the charges are proved and in case no oral enquiry is done or documents are proved, then it cannot be said that the enquiry was concluded after following the due procedure.

12. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar question in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) held as under:- “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.

29. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee.

30. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service."

13. Since the enquiry has been conducted by the inquiry officer without fixing any date, time and place and without adducing any evidence to prove the charges and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby ignoring the procedure prescribed in law and the impugned dismissal order has been passed on the basis of ex-parte enquiry report and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow is hereby quashed. Consequences will follow. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Anupam S/- (Brij Raj Singh, J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench