Rambabu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 5th August 2025 whereby petitioner has been reverted to the basic pay scale in pursuance of inquiry report dated 24th June 2025.

3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 28th April 2025, containing one charge and inquiry proceedings were instituted against him. Learned counsel has adverted to the inquiry report dated 24th June 2025 to submit that petitioner has been found guilty of the charge levelled against him only on the ground that he was unable to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate his reply. It is further submitted that even the impugned order has been passed only on the same ground.

4. It is submitted that opposite parties have completely violated provisions of Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, inasmuch as the procedure indicated therein has not been followed.

5. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 26th August 2025, which is taken on record and submits that petitioner was found guilty of charge levelled against him primarily on the ground that he was unable to produce any evidence in his support.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the inquiry report, it is 2 WRIA No. 9657 of 2025 evident that petitioner has been found guilty of the charge levelled against him primarily on the ground that he was unable to support his reply by any corroborative evidence. It is quite evident that no oral inquiry both the name ever took place.

7. The procedure required to be followed in disciplinary proceedings in order to maintain transparency and fairness have also been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various other judgments such as Roop Singh others Negi MANU/SC/8456/2008:(2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 398 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772. National Punjab versus The relevant portion of Roop Singh Negi (supra) is as follows: "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 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." The relevant portion of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) is as follows : "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." "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."

8. It is also settled law that with regard to inquiry proceedings, it is incumbent upon the department first to prima facie establish a case against a delinquent employee, whereafter only he is required to submit his evidence. 3 WRIA No. 9657 of 2025 Oral inquiry is also a must in which the delinquent employee is required to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

9. The inquiry report dated 24th June 2025 makes it evident that none of the aforesaid procedure has been followed in the inquiry proceedings.

10. The impugned order dated 5th August 2025 has also completely ignored the statutory provisions with regard to conduct of inquiry pertaining to major penalty. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 5th August 2025, the reasons for passing of which are self-evident, is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, granting liberty to opposite parties to conduct the inquiry afresh from the stage of filing of reply by petitioner and strictly following provisions of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999, as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated herein above.

11. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority are hereby warned not to conduct disciplinary proceedings in the manner in which they have been conducted in the present case and strictly follow provisions of Rule 1999.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. August 27, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 5th August 2025 whereby petitioner has been reverted to the basic pay scale in pursuance of inquiry report dated 24th June 2025.

3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 28th April 2025, containing one charge and inquiry proceedings were instituted against him. Learned counsel has adverted to the inquiry report dated 24th June 2025 to submit that petitioner has been found guilty of the charge levelled against him only on the ground that he was unable to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate his reply. It is further submitted that even the impugned order has been passed only on the same ground.

4. It is submitted that opposite parties have completely violated provisions of Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, inasmuch as the procedure indicated therein has not been followed.

5. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 26th August 2025, which is taken on record and submits that petitioner was found guilty of charge levelled against him primarily on the ground that he was unable to produce any evidence in his support.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the inquiry report, it is 2 WRIA No. 9657 of 2025 evident that petitioner has been found guilty of the charge levelled against him primarily on the ground that he was unable to support his reply by any corroborative evidence. It is quite evident that no oral inquiry both the name ever took place.

7. The procedure required to be followed in disciplinary proceedings in order to maintain transparency and fairness have also been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various other judgments such as Roop Singh others Negi MANU/SC/8456/2008:(2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 398 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772. National Punjab versus The relevant portion of Roop Singh Negi (supra) is as follows: "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 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." The relevant portion of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) is as follows : "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." "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."

8. It is also settled law that with regard to inquiry proceedings, it is incumbent upon the department first to prima facie establish a case against a delinquent employee, whereafter only he is required to submit his evidence. 3 WRIA No. 9657 of 2025 Oral inquiry is also a must in which the delinquent employee is required to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

9. The inquiry report dated 24th June 2025 makes it evident that none of the aforesaid procedure has been followed in the inquiry proceedings.

10. The impugned order dated 5th August 2025 has also completely ignored the statutory provisions with regard to conduct of inquiry pertaining to major penalty. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 5th August 2025, the reasons for passing of which are self-evident, is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, granting liberty to opposite parties to conduct the inquiry afresh from the stage of filing of reply by petitioner and strictly following provisions of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999, as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated herein above.

11. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority are hereby warned not to conduct disciplinary proceedings in the manner in which they have been conducted in the present case and strictly follow provisions of Rule 1999.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. August 27, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench