Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Gram Vikas Vibhag Lko. And
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
(1) Heard Mr.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. (2) Petition has been filed challenging order dated
09.07.2025 whereby the enquiry report dated 23.04.2025 has been rejected and further enquiry has been directed by changing Enquiry Officer. (3) Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed impugned order primarily on the ground that while passing aforesaid order and discarding enquiry report, Disciplinary Authority has not recorded any reasons for disagreeing with the conclusion recorded in the enquiry report. It is therefore submitted that order impugned is cryptic in nature and is also against wishes of Rule 9 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999. (4) Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the 2 WRIA No. 12518 of 2025 submission that order impugned itself indicates that enquiry officer in his report dated 23.04.2024 has not taken into account relevant and material facts due to which petitioner stood exonerated and it is in these circumstances that re-enquiry has been directed in terms of Rule 9(1) of Rules of 1999. (5) Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, aspect of re-enquiry being directed by disciplinary authority which is evident from impugned order itself, counter affidavit is being dispensed with and the petition is being adjudicated upon in terms of the directions issued by Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. [1978 (1) SCC 405]. (7) With regard to procedure of enquiry required to be followed pertaining to service of a government servant, the State of U.P. has promulgated Rules of 1999 with the enquiry procedure indicated in Rule 7 thereof. Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules clearly describes action on the enquiry report which is as follows:- "9. Action on Inquiry Report.- (1) The disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re- inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the Disciplinary Authority, according to the provisions of Rule
7. 3 WRIA No. 12518 of 2025 (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated by the disciplinary authority of the charges and inform him accordingly. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant." (8) From perusal of aforesaid Rules, particularly Rule 9 (1) Rules of 1999, it is thus evident that in case Disciplinary Authority remits the case for re-enquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government Servant, reasons are required to be recorded in writing. Sub-Rule (2) thereof also prescribes that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if he disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, record his own findings thereon. (9) Upon applicability of the aforesaid Rule in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident from impugned order that inquiry report dated 23.04.2025 4 WRIA No. 12518 of 2025 exonerated petitioner from charges levelled against him but has been discarded by the Disciplinary Authority merely indicating that enquiry report does not advert to facts of the case. The order clearly is cryptic in nature since it does not indicate or disclose any material before the Disciplinary Authority, which has not been taken into account by the enquiry officer. (10) It is settled law that reasons are required to be indicated even in administrative orders since such reasons are the soul of orders which have been passed and enable any challenge to such orders to be examined on the basis of reasons which are recorded by the authority concerned. (11) Evidently, impugned order has not been passed in accordance with provisions of Rule 9 (1) and (2) of Rules of 1999. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered by Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India and another [2014 (10) SCC 589] clearly enunciating the law that in case the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with enquiry report, he is required to give reasons for such disagreement while remitting the matter for re-enquiry or fresh enquiry. (12) In view of discussion made here-in-above, order impugned dated 09.07.2025 not only being against provisions of Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 but also law enunciated by Supreme Court is hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari granting 5 WRIA No. 12518 of 2025 liberty to the authority concerned to pass orders afresh with regard enquiry report dated 23.04.2025 but only in consonance with the provisions of Rule 9 of Rules of 1999 and the law indicated here-in-above. (13) Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. October 30, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
(1) Heard Mr.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. (2) Petition has been filed challenging order dated
09.07.2025 whereby the enquiry report dated 23.04.2025 has been rejected and further enquiry has been directed by changing Enquiry Officer. (3) Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed impugned order primarily on the ground that while passing aforesaid order and discarding enquiry report, Disciplinary Authority has not recorded any reasons for disagreeing with the conclusion recorded in the enquiry report. It is therefore submitted that order impugned is cryptic in nature and is also against wishes of Rule 9 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999. (4) Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the 2 WRIA No. 12518 of 2025 submission that order impugned itself indicates that enquiry officer in his report dated 23.04.2024 has not taken into account relevant and material facts due to which petitioner stood exonerated and it is in these circumstances that re-enquiry has been directed in terms of Rule 9(1) of Rules of 1999. (5) Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, aspect of re-enquiry being directed by disciplinary authority which is evident from impugned order itself, counter affidavit is being dispensed with and the petition is being adjudicated upon in terms of the directions issued by Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. [1978 (1) SCC 405]. (7) With regard to procedure of enquiry required to be followed pertaining to service of a government servant, the State of U.P. has promulgated Rules of 1999 with the enquiry procedure indicated in Rule 7 thereof. Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules clearly describes action on the enquiry report which is as follows:- "9. Action on Inquiry Report.- (1) The disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re- inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the Disciplinary Authority, according to the provisions of Rule
7. 3 WRIA No. 12518 of 2025 (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated by the disciplinary authority of the charges and inform him accordingly. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant." (8) From perusal of aforesaid Rules, particularly Rule 9 (1) Rules of 1999, it is thus evident that in case Disciplinary Authority remits the case for re-enquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government Servant, reasons are required to be recorded in writing. Sub-Rule (2) thereof also prescribes that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if he disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, record his own findings thereon. (9) Upon applicability of the aforesaid Rule in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident from impugned order that inquiry report dated 23.04.2025 4 WRIA No. 12518 of 2025 exonerated petitioner from charges levelled against him but has been discarded by the Disciplinary Authority merely indicating that enquiry report does not advert to facts of the case. The order clearly is cryptic in nature since it does not indicate or disclose any material before the Disciplinary Authority, which has not been taken into account by the enquiry officer. (10) It is settled law that reasons are required to be indicated even in administrative orders since such reasons are the soul of orders which have been passed and enable any challenge to such orders to be examined on the basis of reasons which are recorded by the authority concerned. (11) Evidently, impugned order has not been passed in accordance with provisions of Rule 9 (1) and (2) of Rules of 1999. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered by Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India and another [2014 (10) SCC 589] clearly enunciating the law that in case the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with enquiry report, he is required to give reasons for such disagreement while remitting the matter for re-enquiry or fresh enquiry. (12) In view of discussion made here-in-above, order impugned dated 09.07.2025 not only being against provisions of Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 but also law enunciated by Supreme Court is hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari granting 5 WRIA No. 12518 of 2025 liberty to the authority concerned to pass orders afresh with regard enquiry report dated 23.04.2025 but only in consonance with the provisions of Rule 9 of Rules of 1999 and the law indicated here-in-above. (13) Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. October 30, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench