Hari Prasad Ambedkar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin.Secy.Minority

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Anchal Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ravi Shanker Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 11.10.2023 whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service on the basis of enquiry report submitted against him.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner, while employed as a District Minority Welfare Officer, was suspended from service and a charge sheet dated 6.7.2021 was issued to him. In response to the said charge sheet, petitioner vide letter dated 13.10.2021 required certain documents, indicated therein, to be supplied to him. When the said documents were not supplied to him, he submitted a reminder dated 23.12.2021 which was received in the office of official concerned whereafter the enquiry officer vide letter dated 30.12.2021 specifically rejected petitioner's requirement of the documents on the premise that it was not possible to provide such documents. It was also indicated that in case petitioner fails to submit his reply within a period of seven days, appropriate proceedings shall continue against him. It is submitted that in pursuance whereof, since petitioner was unable to submit an effective reply, enquiry report dated 23.12.2021 has been submitted resulting in passing of the impugned order.

4. It has been submitted that the entire proceedings are vitiated for not following statutory provisions of Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999. Learned counsel submits that once it is admitted that petitioner had required the relevant documents by means of letter dated 13.10.2021, which were admittedly received by the opposite parties, the said documents should have either been provided to petitioner or an opportunity should have been granted for inspection 2 WRIA No. 8632 of 2023 thereof. It is also submitted that a perusal of the enquiry report would also reveal that documentary evidence relied upon in the enquiry report has not been corroborated by production of any witness and, therefore, no oral enquiry at all has been held. He submits that enquiry report has been submitted pre-supposing petitioner's complicity in the charges levelled against him.

5. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that once time had been granted to petitioner for filing a reply, to which he did not adhere, there was no option left for enquiry officer but to continue with the enquiry proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that ample opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner, which was not availed of by him. In such circumstances, the enquiry report was submitted finding petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him and has been upheld by the impugned dismissal order.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that from the enquiry report itself that admittedly, in response to charge sheet, petitioner submitted a letter dated

13.10.2021 for providing the documents indicated therein. The enquiry report also indicates that the Director, Minority Welfare, U.P. vide letter dated 10.12.2021 has directed that documents required by petitioner should be supplied to him. However, despite such a direction being issued, evidently the opposite parties issued another letter dated 14.12.2021 requiring petitioner to submit the list of documents required by him.

7. Once the enquiry officer has clearly admitted receipt of the letter dated 13.10.2021 sent by petitioner clearly delineating the documents required by him, it is not understandable as to why a subsequent letter dated 14.12.2021 was issued by the enquiry officer again requiring the list of documents to be submitted by petitioner particularly in the light of letter dated 10.12.2021 issued by the Director of the department for providing documents required by petitioner.

8. In the order dated 10.12.2021 issued by the enquiry officer, it is also evident that petitioner's request for supplying of documents has been rejected only on the ground that it was not possible to supply such documents by the enquiry officer. No reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the petitioner could not have been supplied the relevant documents. Even otherwise, in case, the enquiry officer did not have the relevant documents in his own possession, he could have requested the authority concerned in possession of the documents to provide a copy of same to the petitioner or at least permit petitioner to examine the said records. In such circumstances, rejection of request of petitioner for supplying of documents is clearly unsustainable particularly since the enquiry officer does not indicate that documents required by petitioner were irrelevant.

9. A perusal of the enquiry report also reveals the aspect that charges levelled against 3 WRIA No. 8632 of 2023 petitioner have been found established on the basis of documentary evidence, which were available with the enquiry officer. However, it is also evident that no witness at all was examined by the enquiry officer to corroborate the documentary evidence which firms the basis of the enquiry report.

10. The enquiry report, therefore, clearly indicates that no oral enquiry was held, nor was the petitioner permitted to cross-examine any witness, since no such witness was ever produced.

11. Therefore, the proceedings, in the manner in which the enquiry has been concluded, are clearly violative of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

12. The aspect with regard to conduct of an enquiry proceedings which may entail major penalty has also been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National others 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. 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. 4 WRIA No. 8632 of 2023 "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."

13. Evidently, the statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject have not been followed in the present case.

14. It is also evident from the impugned order that the enquiry report has been taken into account without adverting to the aspect that relevant documents sought for by the petitioner had not been supplied despite directions being issued by the competent authority.

15. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the enquiry proceedings as well as the impugned order dated 11.10.2023, being unsustainable, are hereby quashed by issuing direction of certiorari granting liberty to the opposite parties to continue with the enquiry proceedings, but only after supplying of documents required by petitioner by his letter dated 13.10.2021. In case, if it is not possible for supplying of such documents, an opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to examine the said documents personally.

16. The petitioner shall be supplied the documents within a period of 15 days from the date of a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority. The petitioner shall thereafter have a right to file a reply to the charge sheet within a period of 15 days thereafter. The enquiry proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously within a period of four months from the last date on which the petitioner is required to submit his reply to the charge sheet.

17. For the said purpose, petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith.

18. Consequently, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. (Manish Mathur,J.) August 27, 2025 AKK AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench