State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And And Reforms Lko. And Another v. Shrikrishna Pandey Retd. Jail Suprintendent Distt. Jail Jaunpur

1. Heard Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State-petitioners and perused the judgment and order dated 27.07.2023.

2. This petition has been filed by the State-petitioner for the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the learned State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1678/2018 (Shrikrishna Pandey Versus State of U.P. and others) and contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. II. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners, including cost of petition in favour of the petitioners."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent, now retired Jail Superintendent, had been transferred from Lucknow to Ballia on 31.03.2013 and relieved on the same date. He did not join at his place of posting in Ballia till 10.04.2013. By an Office Memorandum dated 01.05.2013, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999") and the Deputy Inspector General (Jail), Lucknow Division, Lucknow was appointed 2 WRIA No. 12987 of 2025 as the enquiry officer. The chargesheet was served upon the petitioner leveling one charge with three ancillary charges. It was served on the delinquent employee on 24.06.2013. The documentary evidence cited along with the chargesheet was also served upon the respondent. He was afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing to produce evidence and also to make a defence. Date, time and place of enquiry were fixed by the enquiry officer and, after affording opportunity of hearing, the enquiry report was submitted on 13.12.2013 before the disciplinary authority. After examining the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, not being in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, by a letter dated 09.01.2014, nominated the Additional Director General (Jail) as the enquiry officer under Rule 9(1) of Rules, 1999. The subsequent enquiry officer conducted the enquiry by affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent and accorded the statement as submitted in the enqury report with a finding that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee had not been found proved. The disciplinary authority examined the findings of the subsequent enquiry officer and, not being in agreement with the said finding, issued a show cause notice on 28.05.2014 under Rule 9(4) of Rules, 1999. In the show cause notice, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition, reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer were clearly mentioned and the respondent was afforded an opportunity to submit his explanation. The respondent submitted his explanation on 20.09.2014. After considering the explanation of the respondent as unsatisfactory, punishment was awarded on 27.11.2014 of stoppage of one increment temporarily for one year.

4. It was also provided that the remaining salary and allowances of the suspension period shall be decided on the basis of a separate show cause notice being issued to him. The respondent preferred an appeal, which was rejected on 21.06.2018 and the punishment order was affirmed. Thereafter, the respondent filed Claim Petition No.1678 of 2018 : Shrikrishna Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, challenging the punishment order and the appellate order before the State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"). After exchange of affidavits, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition by relying upon the averments made by the respondent in the claim petition without examining the enquiry report, the show cause notice and the punishment order with 3 WRIA No. 12987 of 2025 sufficient diligence. The punishment order and the appellate order were set aside and it was directed that the respondent shall be entitled to get all consequential service benefits. The order dated 27.07.2023 was directed to be complied with within three months from the date of issuance of the certified copy.

5. There is no explanation in the writ petition with regard to the delay in approaching this Court against the order dated 27.07.2023, which was directed by the Tribunal to be complied with within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment/order. There is also no explanation or description of subsequent events with regard to whether the order was in fact complied with and the benefit as directed by the Tribunal was given to the delinquent employee. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to why the State has chosen to file this writ petition after the employee, the respondent, retired in 2024.

6. As it is, the punishment order and the appellate order had only awarded a minor punishment to the respondent of stoppage of one increment temporarily for one year. There is no description in the writ petition whether the pay fixation of the respondent has been done in pursuance of the order impugned.

7. Even otherwise, we have gone through the show cause notice that was issued to the respondent and we find therein that the disciplinary authority has not mentioned why he had found the finding of the enquiry officer appointed by him unsatisfactory, because the enquiry officer had stated clearly in his finding that the illness of the delinquent employee was communicated through registered post to the office in time.

8. We find no good ground for interference. The petition is dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 10, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State-petitioners and perused the judgment and order dated 27.07.2023.

2. This petition has been filed by the State-petitioner for the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the learned State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1678/2018 (Shrikrishna Pandey Versus State of U.P. and others) and contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. II. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners, including cost of petition in favour of the petitioners."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent, now retired Jail Superintendent, had been transferred from Lucknow to Ballia on 31.03.2013 and relieved on the same date. He did not join at his place of posting in Ballia till 10.04.2013. By an Office Memorandum dated 01.05.2013, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999") and the Deputy Inspector General (Jail), Lucknow Division, Lucknow was appointed 2 WRIA No. 12987 of 2025 as the enquiry officer. The chargesheet was served upon the petitioner leveling one charge with three ancillary charges. It was served on the delinquent employee on 24.06.2013. The documentary evidence cited along with the chargesheet was also served upon the respondent. He was afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing to produce evidence and also to make a defence. Date, time and place of enquiry were fixed by the enquiry officer and, after affording opportunity of hearing, the enquiry report was submitted on 13.12.2013 before the disciplinary authority. After examining the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, not being in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, by a letter dated 09.01.2014, nominated the Additional Director General (Jail) as the enquiry officer under Rule 9(1) of Rules, 1999. The subsequent enquiry officer conducted the enquiry by affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent and accorded the statement as submitted in the enqury report with a finding that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee had not been found proved. The disciplinary authority examined the findings of the subsequent enquiry officer and, not being in agreement with the said finding, issued a show cause notice on 28.05.2014 under Rule 9(4) of Rules, 1999. In the show cause notice, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition, reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer were clearly mentioned and the respondent was afforded an opportunity to submit his explanation. The respondent submitted his explanation on 20.09.2014. After considering the explanation of the respondent as unsatisfactory, punishment was awarded on 27.11.2014 of stoppage of one increment temporarily for one year.

4. It was also provided that the remaining salary and allowances of the suspension period shall be decided on the basis of a separate show cause notice being issued to him. The respondent preferred an appeal, which was rejected on 21.06.2018 and the punishment order was affirmed. Thereafter, the respondent filed Claim Petition No.1678 of 2018 : Shrikrishna Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, challenging the punishment order and the appellate order before the State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"). After exchange of affidavits, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition by relying upon the averments made by the respondent in the claim petition without examining the enquiry report, the show cause notice and the punishment order with 3 WRIA No. 12987 of 2025 sufficient diligence. The punishment order and the appellate order were set aside and it was directed that the respondent shall be entitled to get all consequential service benefits. The order dated 27.07.2023 was directed to be complied with within three months from the date of issuance of the certified copy.

5. There is no explanation in the writ petition with regard to the delay in approaching this Court against the order dated 27.07.2023, which was directed by the Tribunal to be complied with within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment/order. There is also no explanation or description of subsequent events with regard to whether the order was in fact complied with and the benefit as directed by the Tribunal was given to the delinquent employee. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to why the State has chosen to file this writ petition after the employee, the respondent, retired in 2024.

6. As it is, the punishment order and the appellate order had only awarded a minor punishment to the respondent of stoppage of one increment temporarily for one year. There is no description in the writ petition whether the pay fixation of the respondent has been done in pursuance of the order impugned.

7. Even otherwise, we have gone through the show cause notice that was issued to the respondent and we find therein that the disciplinary authority has not mentioned why he had found the finding of the enquiry officer appointed by him unsatisfactory, because the enquiry officer had stated clearly in his finding that the illness of the delinquent employee was communicated through registered post to the office in time.

8. We find no good ground for interference. The petition is dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 10, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench