High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri I. P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 6th September, 2024, has approached this Court by means of present writ petition stating that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily suspended him on vague allegations. It has further been stated that though the preliminary inquiry was conducted but the respondents never associated the petitioner with the said inquiry and the same is in gross violation of the Government Order dated 5.3.2004 and accordingly the order of suspension and the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents are illegal and arbitrary, hence require to be set aside.

3. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submitted that there are serious and grave allegations against the petitioner with regard to dereliction of duty in respect of maintenance and repair work of the MLTD embankment at Balrampur. He has further submitted that the preliminary inquiry was conducted and it is only after ascertaining the facts and also with regard to culpability of the petitioner as well as establishment of his guilt in the preliminary inquiry that final decision regarding initiating regular disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner culminated in the impugned order by which the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the order of suspension initiating disciplinary proceedings and accordingly prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

5. The allegations against the petitioner, as borne out from the suspension order dated 6th September, 2024, are that directions were given by concerned Superintending Engineer to the petitioner, who was working on the post of Executive Engineer to repair the embankment and even all the material required for the said purpose was provided to him but the said work was not completed. It was found that there were gaps in the embankment which would effect the safety of life and liberty of the people and consequently it was necessary to repair the said MLTD embankment but despite directions the said work was not carried out by the petitioner resulting in the present disciplinary proceedings.

6. With regard to the first contention raised by the petitioner regarding the Government Order dated 5.3.2004, it is noticed that it is provided that so far in the preliminary inquiry no opportunity of hearing is given to the delinquent government servant and consequently decision was taken to involve the delinquent government servant during the preliminary inquiry before submitting the preliminary inquiry report. From a bare perusal of the Government Order dated 5.3.2004 it is clear that the same are guidelines to ensure fairness in preliminary inquiry whenever it is possible. Further, no consequence of non compliance of the said direction have been stated in the said government order and accordingly it clearly indicates that they are mere guideline. Even otherwise, the purpose of preliminary inquiry is merely to ascertain the correctness of the allegations contained in various complaints or the information which has been received by the State Government/competent authority necessitating initiation of proceedings against the delinquent government servant. There is no provision either in the rules which provide for grant of opportunity of hearing at the preliminary inquiry stage in as much as at this juncture there are no allegations to be inquired against any particular government servant and merely the veracity of the allegations contained in the complaints are sought to be verified and at this stage the government servant cannot be saddled by any adverse order including punishment. It is only when the veracity of the allegations contained in the complaints are verified then decision is taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the person who is responsible for the misconduct.

7. A detailed provision has been made in U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 with regard to conduct of disciplinary proceedings where opportunity of hearing at every stage is granted to the delinquent government servant. After issuance of the charges sheet reply is sought for and before the inquiry officer the delinquent government servant has full opportunity to adduce evidence and cross examine any witness which is relevant for the said purpose. Even after submission of the inquiry report before the disciplinary proceedings he can avail his opportunity of hearing and even if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer again there is provision for grant of opportunity of hearing and accordingly opportunity, if any, which can be claimed as a matter of right is duly provided to the government servant during conduct of the regular disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, we find that the government order dated 5.3.2004 only provides for guidelines to be followed wherever necessary and non compliance of the guidelines of the said government order even otherwise would not result in vitiation of the disciplinary proceedings. This is also on the anvil that the punishment, if any, is based on the evidence adduced during the regular inquiry proceedings and not during the preliminary inquiry proceedings

8. The purpose of preliminary inquiry is limited for taking decision by the competent authority whether to institute a disciplinary proceedings or not and the said inquiry report cannot be utilized further against the delinquent government servant in the regular disciplinary proceedings which undoubtedly proceeds on the basis of the evidence produced in the regular disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the said argument, which is rejected.

9. The second ground raised is with regard to the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner. Considering the order of suspension which contained nature of allegations against the petitioner, it is found that the allegations against the petitioner is with regard to non compliance of the directions of the superior authority for not constructing the embankment as was directed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely on various documents which may indicate that the petitioner had, in fact, complied with the directions but we refrain from examining the same in the instant petition as they are in the nature of defence raised by the petitioner which would be adequately looked into in the disciplinary proceedings. From the nature of the allegations we find that it cannot be said that there is no material against the petitioner for conducting disciplinary proceedings or that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not so serious so as to result in major penalty against him. The charges against the petitioner are proved or not can be done only during the disciplinary proceedings where he would have due opportunity to rebut the said allegations and demonstrate before the inquiry officer that the charges are not made out and that he had duly complied with the directions of the superior authority with regard to construction of embankment.

11. It is further informed that charge sheet dated 11.10.2024 has already been submitted to the petitioner which was received by him on 23.10.2024 but the reply to the same has not been submitted so far because certain documents as sought by the petitioner have not been provided by the respondents.

12. Be that as it may, it is necessary for the respondents to conclude the inquiry in a time bound manner and the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, it is provided that the petitioner shall submit his response within next two weeks. On this submission of the response within next two weeks, the disciplinary proceedings can be concluded within a maximum period of three months in accordance with law.

13. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the said inquiry and in case the inquiry is not concluded within the time prescribed by this Court, the petitioner will have opportunity of moving an application under Rule 4 sub clause 8 of the Rules of 1999. In case, such an application is made, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same within one week thereafter in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

14. Subject to aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the case, which is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri I. P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 6th September, 2024, has approached this Court by means of present writ petition stating that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily suspended him on vague allegations. It has further been stated that though the preliminary inquiry was conducted but the respondents never associated the petitioner with the said inquiry and the same is in gross violation of the Government Order dated 5.3.2004 and accordingly the order of suspension and the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents are illegal and arbitrary, hence require to be set aside.

3. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submitted that there are serious and grave allegations against the petitioner with regard to dereliction of duty in respect of maintenance and repair work of the MLTD embankment at Balrampur. He has further submitted that the preliminary inquiry was conducted and it is only after ascertaining the facts and also with regard to culpability of the petitioner as well as establishment of his guilt in the preliminary inquiry that final decision regarding initiating regular disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner culminated in the impugned order by which the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the order of suspension initiating disciplinary proceedings and accordingly prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

5. The allegations against the petitioner, as borne out from the suspension order dated 6th September, 2024, are that directions were given by concerned Superintending Engineer to the petitioner, who was working on the post of Executive Engineer to repair the embankment and even all the material required for the said purpose was provided to him but the said work was not completed. It was found that there were gaps in the embankment which would effect the safety of life and liberty of the people and consequently it was necessary to repair the said MLTD embankment but despite directions the said work was not carried out by the petitioner resulting in the present disciplinary proceedings.

6. With regard to the first contention raised by the petitioner regarding the Government Order dated 5.3.2004, it is noticed that it is provided that so far in the preliminary inquiry no opportunity of hearing is given to the delinquent government servant and consequently decision was taken to involve the delinquent government servant during the preliminary inquiry before submitting the preliminary inquiry report. From a bare perusal of the Government Order dated 5.3.2004 it is clear that the same are guidelines to ensure fairness in preliminary inquiry whenever it is possible. Further, no consequence of non compliance of the said direction have been stated in the said government order and accordingly it clearly indicates that they are mere guideline. Even otherwise, the purpose of preliminary inquiry is merely to ascertain the correctness of the allegations contained in various complaints or the information which has been received by the State Government/competent authority necessitating initiation of proceedings against the delinquent government servant. There is no provision either in the rules which provide for grant of opportunity of hearing at the preliminary inquiry stage in as much as at this juncture there are no allegations to be inquired against any particular government servant and merely the veracity of the allegations contained in the complaints are sought to be verified and at this stage the government servant cannot be saddled by any adverse order including punishment. It is only when the veracity of the allegations contained in the complaints are verified then decision is taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the person who is responsible for the misconduct.

7. A detailed provision has been made in U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 with regard to conduct of disciplinary proceedings where opportunity of hearing at every stage is granted to the delinquent government servant. After issuance of the charges sheet reply is sought for and before the inquiry officer the delinquent government servant has full opportunity to adduce evidence and cross examine any witness which is relevant for the said purpose. Even after submission of the inquiry report before the disciplinary proceedings he can avail his opportunity of hearing and even if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer again there is provision for grant of opportunity of hearing and accordingly opportunity, if any, which can be claimed as a matter of right is duly provided to the government servant during conduct of the regular disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, we find that the government order dated 5.3.2004 only provides for guidelines to be followed wherever necessary and non compliance of the guidelines of the said government order even otherwise would not result in vitiation of the disciplinary proceedings. This is also on the anvil that the punishment, if any, is based on the evidence adduced during the regular inquiry proceedings and not during the preliminary inquiry proceedings

8. The purpose of preliminary inquiry is limited for taking decision by the competent authority whether to institute a disciplinary proceedings or not and the said inquiry report cannot be utilized further against the delinquent government servant in the regular disciplinary proceedings which undoubtedly proceeds on the basis of the evidence produced in the regular disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the said argument, which is rejected.

9. The second ground raised is with regard to the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner. Considering the order of suspension which contained nature of allegations against the petitioner, it is found that the allegations against the petitioner is with regard to non compliance of the directions of the superior authority for not constructing the embankment as was directed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely on various documents which may indicate that the petitioner had, in fact, complied with the directions but we refrain from examining the same in the instant petition as they are in the nature of defence raised by the petitioner which would be adequately looked into in the disciplinary proceedings. From the nature of the allegations we find that it cannot be said that there is no material against the petitioner for conducting disciplinary proceedings or that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not so serious so as to result in major penalty against him. The charges against the petitioner are proved or not can be done only during the disciplinary proceedings where he would have due opportunity to rebut the said allegations and demonstrate before the inquiry officer that the charges are not made out and that he had duly complied with the directions of the superior authority with regard to construction of embankment.

11. It is further informed that charge sheet dated 11.10.2024 has already been submitted to the petitioner which was received by him on 23.10.2024 but the reply to the same has not been submitted so far because certain documents as sought by the petitioner have not been provided by the respondents.

12. Be that as it may, it is necessary for the respondents to conclude the inquiry in a time bound manner and the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, it is provided that the petitioner shall submit his response within next two weeks. On this submission of the response within next two weeks, the disciplinary proceedings can be concluded within a maximum period of three months in accordance with law.

13. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the said inquiry and in case the inquiry is not concluded within the time prescribed by this Court, the petitioner will have opportunity of moving an application under Rule 4 sub clause 8 of the Rules of 1999. In case, such an application is made, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same within one week thereafter in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

14. Subject to aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the case, which is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench