Bishwarup Banerjee vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Devansh Mani, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer: "To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment & order dated 07.01.2025, passed by the Learned Tribunal in claim petition no.494 of 2024, contained as Annexure no.1 to the present writ petition."

3. Learned Counsel representing the State has submitted that, as is evident from paragraph-14 onwards of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2025, the Tribunal has only recorded the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent regarding non-supply of the chargesheet, non- supply of the documentary evidence in support of the chargesheet, and non-grant of opportunity to produce defence witnesses, and that the charges in themselves were vague and not specific, which is in violation of Rule 7(2) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

4. The Tribunal has not given its independent findings on such arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In paragraph 17, the 2 WRIA No. 12811 of 2025 Tribunal has observed that having heard the Counsel for the petitioner, it was of the view that the whole enquiry suffered from grave procedural irregularity, and any punishment order passed on the basis of a defective enquiry is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Claim Petition was allowed, the punishment order dated 15.12.2023 was quashed, but at the same time, all consequential service benefits which had been withheld on account of punishment order as per rules were also directed to be given. No liberty was granted to the respondent to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage it stood vitiated.

5. In fact, the Tribunal has not given any finding as to from which stage the enquiry stood vitiated. It has nevertheless set aside the punishment order by holding that the enquiry suffered from procedural irregularity, and has at the same time granted consequential service benefits to the respondent, which is against the law in view of the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727 and also judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Prabhat Kumar, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 736, where reference has been to the judgement rendered in ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar and the Appeal had been allowed with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the enquiry from the stage prior to the order of punishment, i.e., from the stage the disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated, and the enquiry would have to be completed preferably within a period of three months.

6. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, has pointed out the charges framed against the petitioner which have been quoted in internal page- 2 & 3 of the judgment, and he has also referred to page-143 of the paper book, which is a part of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, and has emphasized that the Enquiry Officer had noted that the departmental witnesses were not coming forward to prove the charges despite repeated letters being issued to them. Only one departmental witness had come forward to support the charges, but he also failed to provide any independent/ documentary or other evidence to support his complaint.

7. It has been submitted that despite the Enquiry Officer noting that the 3 WRIA No. 12811 of 2025 departmental witnesses had not cooperated in the enquiry and, therefore, the charges could not be proved, nevertheless, a finding has been recorded regarding guilt of the delinquent employee, which finding is perverse.

8. We are of the considered opinion that if the Tribunal had found the enquiry to have been conducted against the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and there was grave procedural irregularity in the enquiry proceedings, the Tribunal could have set aside the punishment order, leaving it open for the State to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage it stood vitiated, and may also perhaps set a time limit for conducting of the fresh enquiry so that the delinquent employee is not unnecessarily prejudiced by delay in conduct of the enquiry. However, nothing of this sort has been done.

9. Only an observation has been made that there were procedural irregularities in the enquiry proceedings and therefore the punishment order is being set aside and consequential benefits have been given to the respondent. Such observations made by the Tribunal are against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727.

10. The order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Enquiry Report having been found to be vitiated on grounds of non- following the Rules of 1999, we give liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate a fresh enquiry after serving a copy of the chargesheet along with the documentary evidence on the respondent. Such service shall be made within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent is directed to submit his reply to the chargesheet within a period of three weeks from the date of service of such chargesheet upon him. The enquiry shall be held thereafter and shall be concluded within a period of three months thereafter. The Enquiry Report shall be submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, who shall issue show cause notice as per the Rules to the respondent and give him two weeks' time to submit his reply. The entire disciplinary proceeding shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Disciplinary Authority. 4 WRIA No. 12811 of 2025

11. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent is due to retire within a period of three months.

12. We are of the considered opinion that such retirement will have no consequence on the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated when the chargesheet was issued to the respondent on 22.03.2022.

13. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 4, 2025 Rahul RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Devansh Mani, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer: "To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment & order dated 07.01.2025, passed by the Learned Tribunal in claim petition no.494 of 2024, contained as Annexure no.1 to the present writ petition."

3. Learned Counsel representing the State has submitted that, as is evident from paragraph-14 onwards of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2025, the Tribunal has only recorded the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent regarding non-supply of the chargesheet, non- supply of the documentary evidence in support of the chargesheet, and non-grant of opportunity to produce defence witnesses, and that the charges in themselves were vague and not specific, which is in violation of Rule 7(2) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

4. The Tribunal has not given its independent findings on such arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In paragraph 17, the 2 WRIA No. 12811 of 2025 Tribunal has observed that having heard the Counsel for the petitioner, it was of the view that the whole enquiry suffered from grave procedural irregularity, and any punishment order passed on the basis of a defective enquiry is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Claim Petition was allowed, the punishment order dated 15.12.2023 was quashed, but at the same time, all consequential service benefits which had been withheld on account of punishment order as per rules were also directed to be given. No liberty was granted to the respondent to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage it stood vitiated.

5. In fact, the Tribunal has not given any finding as to from which stage the enquiry stood vitiated. It has nevertheless set aside the punishment order by holding that the enquiry suffered from procedural irregularity, and has at the same time granted consequential service benefits to the respondent, which is against the law in view of the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727 and also judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Prabhat Kumar, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 736, where reference has been to the judgement rendered in ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar and the Appeal had been allowed with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the enquiry from the stage prior to the order of punishment, i.e., from the stage the disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated, and the enquiry would have to be completed preferably within a period of three months.

6. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, has pointed out the charges framed against the petitioner which have been quoted in internal page- 2 & 3 of the judgment, and he has also referred to page-143 of the paper book, which is a part of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, and has emphasized that the Enquiry Officer had noted that the departmental witnesses were not coming forward to prove the charges despite repeated letters being issued to them. Only one departmental witness had come forward to support the charges, but he also failed to provide any independent/ documentary or other evidence to support his complaint.

7. It has been submitted that despite the Enquiry Officer noting that the 3 WRIA No. 12811 of 2025 departmental witnesses had not cooperated in the enquiry and, therefore, the charges could not be proved, nevertheless, a finding has been recorded regarding guilt of the delinquent employee, which finding is perverse.

8. We are of the considered opinion that if the Tribunal had found the enquiry to have been conducted against the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and there was grave procedural irregularity in the enquiry proceedings, the Tribunal could have set aside the punishment order, leaving it open for the State to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage it stood vitiated, and may also perhaps set a time limit for conducting of the fresh enquiry so that the delinquent employee is not unnecessarily prejudiced by delay in conduct of the enquiry. However, nothing of this sort has been done.

9. Only an observation has been made that there were procedural irregularities in the enquiry proceedings and therefore the punishment order is being set aside and consequential benefits have been given to the respondent. Such observations made by the Tribunal are against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727.

10. The order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Enquiry Report having been found to be vitiated on grounds of non- following the Rules of 1999, we give liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate a fresh enquiry after serving a copy of the chargesheet along with the documentary evidence on the respondent. Such service shall be made within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent is directed to submit his reply to the chargesheet within a period of three weeks from the date of service of such chargesheet upon him. The enquiry shall be held thereafter and shall be concluded within a period of three months thereafter. The Enquiry Report shall be submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, who shall issue show cause notice as per the Rules to the respondent and give him two weeks' time to submit his reply. The entire disciplinary proceeding shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Disciplinary Authority. 4 WRIA No. 12811 of 2025

11. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent is due to retire within a period of three months.

12. We are of the considered opinion that such retirement will have no consequence on the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated when the chargesheet was issued to the respondent on 22.03.2022.

13. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 4, 2025 Rahul RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench