Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Lko.Andanr

was found that one firm M/s Yash Solutions had quoted the lowest rate. The said rates, received in the financial bid, were forwarded by petitioner vide letters dated 06.07.2018 and 09.07.2018 along with relevant records. Approval with regard to the same was also granted on 10.07.2018.

5. Subsequently on 18.08.2018, the respondent no.2 issued directions for stoppage of further payments to the selected firms conducting the work of soil testing. The said order was complied with on the same day and no payments were made thereafter to the firm.

6. Subsequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner by the State Government on 16.11.2018, indicating three charges leveled against him. The first charge pertained to allegation that the entire bid process was conducted only by the petitioner and due to his active collaboration, cartelization among the three firms was possible due to tailor- made tender conditions. The charge also indicates that out of nine firms which had participated in the biding process, three firms having the same ownership and relations were allowed.

7. Charge no.2 pertains to the fact that along with tender bids, the three firms, namely, M/s Yash Solutions, Bareilly, M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, Bareilly and M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal, Bareli submitted invoices with regard to the same machines and upon examination, it was found that two out of three invoices were forged. The charge leveled is that petitioner deliberately overlooked the relevant documents which would have proved ineligibility of the said firms.

8. Charge no.3 pertains to tender conditions not being in accordance with guidelines dated 22.01.2018 only to make the tenders tailor-made for the selected firms.

9. It is next submitted that reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted by petitioner whereafter, inquiry report was submitted on 09.05.2018 holding petitioner guilty of the first two charges while exonerating him with regard to the third charge. 3 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021

10. It is also submitted that in pursuance thereof, a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner to which reply was submitted whereafter the impugned punishment order has been passed.

11. It is further submitted that a perusal of the inquiry report will make it evident that there was no oral inquiry which was conducted during the inquiry proceedings and no witnesses were ever produced for corroborating the documents and allegations leveled against petitioner. Violation of the Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999") therefore, has been alleged.

12. It is also submitted that petitioner has been held guilty of charges which were not mentioned in the charge-sheet and the inquiry report is based on extraneous material such as document dated 31.05.2018 which was not indicated in the charge-sheet at all and, therefore, an inquiry report being based on documents and charges not indicated in the charge-sheet is, therefore, perverse.

13. Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit and has submitted that the aspect of cartelization and petitioner being the sole person involved in finalization of tender bids was clearly made out in the inquiry report itself and as per the documents which were placed on record and were admitted. It is submitted that in case charges leveled in the inquiry proceedings could very well be proved by means of admitted evidence, there is no occasion for any oral inquiry to be led.

14. It is further submitted that the document dated 31.05.2018, on which, reliance was placed by the Inquiry Officer, though not indicated in the charge-sheet, was in fact produced by the petitioner himself during the inquiry proceeding and, therefore, did not require any corroboration.

15. In his rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated the aspects that the tender conditions were approved by the Deputy Director (Information), Bareilly as indicated and admitted in the paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit. He has also submitted that Rule 9 (4) of Rules, 1999 has been specifically ignored by the Disciplinary Authority and there is no cogent consideration of reply submitted by petitioner to the show-cause notice. 4 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021

16. It is also submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been passed without proper application of mind. It is also submitted that the allegations pertain to almost 7 years ago, even in case, violation of statutory provisions is established, there is no occasion for any remand of the matter for consideration afresh.

17. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, the facts as indicated hereinabove, are admitted and do not require reiteration.

18. The aspect, therefore, requiring consideration is, as to whether, the inquiry has been held in violation of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 with findings recorded on charges and documents which do not find mention in the charge-sheet. Examination will also be required, as to whether, the violation of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1999 has been made.

19. Upon perusal of the charge-sheet dated 25.01.2019, it is evident that charge no.1 includes other charges as well, particularly, the charge that petitioner was solely responsible for determination of tender conditions and by making the said conditions tailor-made, permitted cartelization among the three firms who were selected out of total of nine firms who had bid.

20. Charge no.2 also pertains to permitting collaboration between the selected firms, as also the deliberate omission by petitioner of not examining the documents such as invoices which were submitted by the selected firms, upon scrutiny, which were found to be forged.

21. As has been indicated hereinabove, petitioner has been found guilty in first two charges while exonerating with regard to the third charge.

22. Scrutiny of the inquiry report pertaining to charge no.1 clearly indicates the aspect that petitioner has been found to be solely responsible for determining the tender conditions which allegedly were tailor-made for the purpose of selecting the three firms who constituted the cartel.

23. The aspect of cartelization has already been considered by this Court in the judgment and order dated 11.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.36201 (S/S) of 2018 preferred by petitioner against the suspension order dated

16.11.2018. The reasoning of the aforesaid judgment is as follows: "I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and 5 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021 have perused the record. A perusal of the documents on record such as the guidelines existing at the time of floating of tenders and the subsequent guidelines clearly indicates the fact that the provision for banning of cartilization has been brought into place only by means of the subsequent guidelines dated 7th August, 2018 and was not present at the time of consideration of applications. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that any pecuniary loss was occasioned to the Government on account of selection so made by the petitioner as a Member of the Committee. Even the averment in the writ petition pertaining to hostile discrimination has not been denied in the counter affidavit inasmuch as the counter affidavit is silent as to why action was not taken against all the members of the Committee in case of any irregularity. Further more, it is not the case of the opposite parties that the persons who were found to be ineligible by the Committee were actually eligible and had been restrained from carrying out the work in pursuance of any incorrect order by the Committee of which the petitioner is a Member. In view of the fact that the only role assigned to the petitioner in the suspension order (since at this stage I am not going into the issue regarding the charges levelled in the charge sheet) is only of negligence and also on account of the fact that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government and the factum of hostile discrimination has also not been denied by the opposite parties, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned suspension order dated 16th November, 2018 and a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant Director (Soil Testing/Culture) forthwith. However it shall be open to the opposite parties to conduct the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed."

24. It is admitted by both the parties that the judgment and order dated

11.03.2019 has attained finality and examination of the said order clearly reveals the fact that provision for banning cartelization has been brought in place only by means of subsequent guidelines dated 07.08.2018 which were not present at the time of formulating tender conditions. 6 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021

25. So far as the aspect of petitioner being the sole person responsible for determination of tender conditions is concerned, the inquiry report refers to certain documents, including the letter dated 30.05.2018. From the record, it is evident that by means of said order dated 30.05.2018, a six member' committee had been constituted for finalizing tender conditions with the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bareilly being the Chair-person. The inquiry report does not indicate any of the members of the said committee having been produced as witnesses to establish the charge that petitioner solely completed all the conditions pertaining to issuance of tender and that they did not have any role whatsoever in such determination. The inquiry report also does not advert to the fact that the tender conditions were, thereafter, approved by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bareilly. As indicated hereinabove, the finding in holding guilty to petitioner with regard to charge no.1 is only on the basis of examination of various documents and correspondence which were found in the office of the petitioner. It is evident that no specific document has been alluded to in the inquiry report out of the said documents which were allegedly found in the office of petitioner.

26. The inquiry report also indicates various documents allegedly produced by the Office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bareilly and refers to various evidences on record to hold the petitioner guilty.

27. It is evident that finding recorded in paragraph no.5 of the inquiry report pertaining to charge no.1 also indicates that petitioner on his own, determined the tender conditions even prior to constitution of the tender committee. It is further evident from the charge-sheet that no such charge has been leveled against the petitioner and, therefore, the Inquiry Officer was incompetent to provide a new finding with regard to the said allegation.

28. In view of the above discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that with regard to the charge no.1, petitioner has been found guilty on the basis of various documents allegedly on record with the Inquiry Officer but it is also evident that no oral inquiry took place to corroborate any of such documents, which even otherwise are not specifically indicated by the Inquiry Officer. It is also not understandable, as to why, the Inquiry Officer did not conduct any oral inquiry by requiring presence of other members of the tender selection committee who only could have proved that the tender conditions were tailor-made solely at the behest of petitioner. 7 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021

29. In view of the aforesaid, it is, thus, evident that with regard to charge no.1, the provisions as required to be followed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, have been completely ignored and bypassed.

30. With regard to charge no.2, petitioner has been found guilty primarily on the basis of findings recorded as per charge no.1. However, the Inquiry Officer has not indicated as to whether the invoices which allegedly, petitioner deliberately omitted to examine, were required as essential documents along with the tender bids or not and if not, the consequences thereof.

31. Here again, it is evident that no oral inquiry at all has been conducted to prove the aforesaid charge. With regard to conduct of inquiry proceeding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 has laid down as follow: "27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge."".

32. Similarly, in the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National bank and others MANU/SC/8456/2008:(2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 398, it has been enunciated as follow: "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported 8 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021 evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." "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."

34. In the case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88, it has been held that although jurisdiction of courts in judicial review is limited but disciplinary proceeding being quasi judicial in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge and Inquiry Officer cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact to shift the burden of proof solely upon the delinquent employee. It is also held that findings of guilt cannot be on the basis of surmises and conjectures and Inquiry Officer cannot inquire into allegations with which the delinquent officer has not been charged with.

35. In the case of State of Uttaranchal and Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 23, it has been held that in case of Departmental Inquiry, the primary burden is on the department itself to prima facie prove charges levelled against the delinquent employee, whereafter only the delinquent employee is required to submit his defence and it is incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to require corroboration of evidence by witnesses who are also required to be permitted to be cross-examined by the delinquent employee.

36. As has been indicated hereinabove, the inquiry proceedings are completely in violation, not only of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but also in violation of the aforesaid judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme 9 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021 Court.

37. Upon examination of the punishment order as well, it is evident that the said aspects have been completely lost sight of by the Punishing Authority who has also taken the inquiry report at face value without examining violation of statutory provisions and judgements on the point. There is no examination of the fact, as to whether the charge of cartelization could be established against the petitioner, in case such a cartelization was prohibited prior to determination of tender conditions or subsequently, particularly, since the tender conditions were finalized on 04.01.2018, with the bids being opened on 18.06.2018, while cartelization was prohibited subsequently vide order dated 07.08.2018, as has already been adjudicated upon vide judgement and order dated 11.06.2019 passed in the Writ Petition 36201 (S/S) of 2018.

38. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the inquiry proceedings as well as the subsequent impugned punishment order dated 03.12.2020 not being in consonance with established laws and statutory provisions is hereby quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to the respondents to hold an inquiry, afresh with regard to lacuna from the stage of submission of reply by petitioner to the charge-sheet in case, fresh inquiry is required.

39. Reluctantly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

40. Parties to bear their own costs. . August 26, 2025 V. Sinha (Manish Mathur,J.) VAISHALI SINHA VAISHALI SINHA VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

was found that one firm M/s Yash Solutions had quoted the lowest rate. The said rates, received in the financial bid, were forwarded by petitioner vide letters dated 06.07.2018 and 09.07.2018 along with relevant records. Approval with regard to the same was also granted on 10.07.2018.

5. Subsequently on 18.08.2018, the respondent no.2 issued directions for stoppage of further payments to the selected firms conducting the work of soil testing. The said order was complied with on the same day and no payments were made thereafter to the firm.

6. Subsequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner by the State Government on 16.11.2018, indicating three charges leveled against him. The first charge pertained to allegation that the entire bid process was conducted only by the petitioner and due to his active collaboration, cartelization among the three firms was possible due to tailor- made tender conditions. The charge also indicates that out of nine firms which had participated in the biding process, three firms having the same ownership and relations were allowed.

7. Charge no.2 pertains to the fact that along with tender bids, the three firms, namely, M/s Yash Solutions, Bareilly, M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, Bareilly and M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal, Bareli submitted invoices with regard to the same machines and upon examination, it was found that two out of three invoices were forged. The charge leveled is that petitioner deliberately overlooked the relevant documents which would have proved ineligibility of the said firms.

8. Charge no.3 pertains to tender conditions not being in accordance with guidelines dated 22.01.2018 only to make the tenders tailor-made for the selected firms.

9. It is next submitted that reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted by petitioner whereafter, inquiry report was submitted on 09.05.2018 holding petitioner guilty of the first two charges while exonerating him with regard to the third charge. 3 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021

10. It is also submitted that in pursuance thereof, a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner to which reply was submitted whereafter the impugned punishment order has been passed.

11. It is further submitted that a perusal of the inquiry report will make it evident that there was no oral inquiry which was conducted during the inquiry proceedings and no witnesses were ever produced for corroborating the documents and allegations leveled against petitioner. Violation of the Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999") therefore, has been alleged.

12. It is also submitted that petitioner has been held guilty of charges which were not mentioned in the charge-sheet and the inquiry report is based on extraneous material such as document dated 31.05.2018 which was not indicated in the charge-sheet at all and, therefore, an inquiry report being based on documents and charges not indicated in the charge-sheet is, therefore, perverse.

13. Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit and has submitted that the aspect of cartelization and petitioner being the sole person involved in finalization of tender bids was clearly made out in the inquiry report itself and as per the documents which were placed on record and were admitted. It is submitted that in case charges leveled in the inquiry proceedings could very well be proved by means of admitted evidence, there is no occasion for any oral inquiry to be led.

14. It is further submitted that the document dated 31.05.2018, on which, reliance was placed by the Inquiry Officer, though not indicated in the charge-sheet, was in fact produced by the petitioner himself during the inquiry proceeding and, therefore, did not require any corroboration.

15. In his rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated the aspects that the tender conditions were approved by the Deputy Director (Information), Bareilly as indicated and admitted in the paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit. He has also submitted that Rule 9 (4) of Rules, 1999 has been specifically ignored by the Disciplinary Authority and there is no cogent consideration of reply submitted by petitioner to the show-cause notice. 4 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021

16. It is also submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been passed without proper application of mind. It is also submitted that the allegations pertain to almost 7 years ago, even in case, violation of statutory provisions is established, there is no occasion for any remand of the matter for consideration afresh.

17. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, the facts as indicated hereinabove, are admitted and do not require reiteration.

18. The aspect, therefore, requiring consideration is, as to whether, the inquiry has been held in violation of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 with findings recorded on charges and documents which do not find mention in the charge-sheet. Examination will also be required, as to whether, the violation of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1999 has been made.

19. Upon perusal of the charge-sheet dated 25.01.2019, it is evident that charge no.1 includes other charges as well, particularly, the charge that petitioner was solely responsible for determination of tender conditions and by making the said conditions tailor-made, permitted cartelization among the three firms who were selected out of total of nine firms who had bid.

20. Charge no.2 also pertains to permitting collaboration between the selected firms, as also the deliberate omission by petitioner of not examining the documents such as invoices which were submitted by the selected firms, upon scrutiny, which were found to be forged.

21. As has been indicated hereinabove, petitioner has been found guilty in first two charges while exonerating with regard to the third charge.

22. Scrutiny of the inquiry report pertaining to charge no.1 clearly indicates the aspect that petitioner has been found to be solely responsible for determining the tender conditions which allegedly were tailor-made for the purpose of selecting the three firms who constituted the cartel.

23. The aspect of cartelization has already been considered by this Court in the judgment and order dated 11.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.36201 (S/S) of 2018 preferred by petitioner against the suspension order dated

16.11.2018. The reasoning of the aforesaid judgment is as follows: "I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and 5 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021 have perused the record. A perusal of the documents on record such as the guidelines existing at the time of floating of tenders and the subsequent guidelines clearly indicates the fact that the provision for banning of cartilization has been brought into place only by means of the subsequent guidelines dated 7th August, 2018 and was not present at the time of consideration of applications. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that any pecuniary loss was occasioned to the Government on account of selection so made by the petitioner as a Member of the Committee. Even the averment in the writ petition pertaining to hostile discrimination has not been denied in the counter affidavit inasmuch as the counter affidavit is silent as to why action was not taken against all the members of the Committee in case of any irregularity. Further more, it is not the case of the opposite parties that the persons who were found to be ineligible by the Committee were actually eligible and had been restrained from carrying out the work in pursuance of any incorrect order by the Committee of which the petitioner is a Member. In view of the fact that the only role assigned to the petitioner in the suspension order (since at this stage I am not going into the issue regarding the charges levelled in the charge sheet) is only of negligence and also on account of the fact that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government and the factum of hostile discrimination has also not been denied by the opposite parties, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned suspension order dated 16th November, 2018 and a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant Director (Soil Testing/Culture) forthwith. However it shall be open to the opposite parties to conduct the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed."

24. It is admitted by both the parties that the judgment and order dated

11.03.2019 has attained finality and examination of the said order clearly reveals the fact that provision for banning cartelization has been brought in place only by means of subsequent guidelines dated 07.08.2018 which were not present at the time of formulating tender conditions. 6 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021

25. So far as the aspect of petitioner being the sole person responsible for determination of tender conditions is concerned, the inquiry report refers to certain documents, including the letter dated 30.05.2018. From the record, it is evident that by means of said order dated 30.05.2018, a six member' committee had been constituted for finalizing tender conditions with the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bareilly being the Chair-person. The inquiry report does not indicate any of the members of the said committee having been produced as witnesses to establish the charge that petitioner solely completed all the conditions pertaining to issuance of tender and that they did not have any role whatsoever in such determination. The inquiry report also does not advert to the fact that the tender conditions were, thereafter, approved by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bareilly. As indicated hereinabove, the finding in holding guilty to petitioner with regard to charge no.1 is only on the basis of examination of various documents and correspondence which were found in the office of the petitioner. It is evident that no specific document has been alluded to in the inquiry report out of the said documents which were allegedly found in the office of petitioner.

26. The inquiry report also indicates various documents allegedly produced by the Office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bareilly and refers to various evidences on record to hold the petitioner guilty.

27. It is evident that finding recorded in paragraph no.5 of the inquiry report pertaining to charge no.1 also indicates that petitioner on his own, determined the tender conditions even prior to constitution of the tender committee. It is further evident from the charge-sheet that no such charge has been leveled against the petitioner and, therefore, the Inquiry Officer was incompetent to provide a new finding with regard to the said allegation.

28. In view of the above discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that with regard to the charge no.1, petitioner has been found guilty on the basis of various documents allegedly on record with the Inquiry Officer but it is also evident that no oral inquiry took place to corroborate any of such documents, which even otherwise are not specifically indicated by the Inquiry Officer. It is also not understandable, as to why, the Inquiry Officer did not conduct any oral inquiry by requiring presence of other members of the tender selection committee who only could have proved that the tender conditions were tailor-made solely at the behest of petitioner. 7 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021

29. In view of the aforesaid, it is, thus, evident that with regard to charge no.1, the provisions as required to be followed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, have been completely ignored and bypassed.

30. With regard to charge no.2, petitioner has been found guilty primarily on the basis of findings recorded as per charge no.1. However, the Inquiry Officer has not indicated as to whether the invoices which allegedly, petitioner deliberately omitted to examine, were required as essential documents along with the tender bids or not and if not, the consequences thereof.

31. Here again, it is evident that no oral inquiry at all has been conducted to prove the aforesaid charge. With regard to conduct of inquiry proceeding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 has laid down as follow: "27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge."".

32. Similarly, in the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National bank and others MANU/SC/8456/2008:(2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 398, it has been enunciated as follow: "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported 8 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021 evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." "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."

34. In the case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88, it has been held that although jurisdiction of courts in judicial review is limited but disciplinary proceeding being quasi judicial in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge and Inquiry Officer cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact to shift the burden of proof solely upon the delinquent employee. It is also held that findings of guilt cannot be on the basis of surmises and conjectures and Inquiry Officer cannot inquire into allegations with which the delinquent officer has not been charged with.

35. In the case of State of Uttaranchal and Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 23, it has been held that in case of Departmental Inquiry, the primary burden is on the department itself to prima facie prove charges levelled against the delinquent employee, whereafter only the delinquent employee is required to submit his defence and it is incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to require corroboration of evidence by witnesses who are also required to be permitted to be cross-examined by the delinquent employee.

36. As has been indicated hereinabove, the inquiry proceedings are completely in violation, not only of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but also in violation of the aforesaid judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme 9 WRIA No. 5402 of 2021 Court.

37. Upon examination of the punishment order as well, it is evident that the said aspects have been completely lost sight of by the Punishing Authority who has also taken the inquiry report at face value without examining violation of statutory provisions and judgements on the point. There is no examination of the fact, as to whether the charge of cartelization could be established against the petitioner, in case such a cartelization was prohibited prior to determination of tender conditions or subsequently, particularly, since the tender conditions were finalized on 04.01.2018, with the bids being opened on 18.06.2018, while cartelization was prohibited subsequently vide order dated 07.08.2018, as has already been adjudicated upon vide judgement and order dated 11.06.2019 passed in the Writ Petition 36201 (S/S) of 2018.

38. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the inquiry proceedings as well as the subsequent impugned punishment order dated 03.12.2020 not being in consonance with established laws and statutory provisions is hereby quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to the respondents to hold an inquiry, afresh with regard to lacuna from the stage of submission of reply by petitioner to the charge-sheet in case, fresh inquiry is required.

39. Reluctantly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

40. Parties to bear their own costs. . August 26, 2025 V. Sinha (Manish Mathur,J.) VAISHALI SINHA VAISHALI SINHA VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench