In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on judgments rendered vs Concluding his arguments, he submitted that since the inquiry proceeding is
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 23rd of September 2000, on compassionate ground and he joined and thereafter, he completed BTC training in 2005 and was granted pay scale of trained Assistant Teacher with effect from the 6th August 2005. Further submission is that the Assistant Basic Education Officer passed an order on 13th November 2003, by which the petitioner was appointed as In-charge along with one Moinuddin for the construction of Sarai Mihi School building, under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Scheme, 2003-04. Thereafter, a complaint was made regarding irregularities and embezzlement of certain amount in the construction of the school building, and an FIR was also lodged against him and the charge sheet was filed in furtherance of the First Information Report 2 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 on the 6th March 2007, and the matter is still pending consideration before the trial court. Adding his argument, he submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on the 26th April 2006, while contemplating a departmental inquiry and Smt. Kamala Verma, the Deputy Basic Education Officer, was appointed as the inquiry officer, but no charge sheet has ever been served upon the petitioner, even after passing of 19 years. She further submitted that the petitioner was attached and he was never involved in any other employment during this period. He further submitted that the subsistence allowance to the petitioner was stopped since 1st June 2020, and after passing of about more than five years, no subsistence allowance has been given. He further argued that the inquiry officer did not complete the inquiry proceedings, even a direction was made by respondent no.2 to conclude the inquiry in the year 2023, rather, all of a sudden, without associating the petitioner and serving thecharge sheet, the enquiry officer submitted an inquiry report on 30th September 2023, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order on 27th March 2025. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry proceeding has been conducted de horsing the rules, as no charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, and the inquiry proceeding has been conducted without associating the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgments aforesaid. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that since the inquiry proceeding is against the rules as well as the settled proposition of law and, therefore, the same is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. Per contra, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has tried to save the orders, but he has failed to refute the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no charge sheet has been served upon 3 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 the petitioner though he contradicted to the limited extent that the petitioner did not respond to any of the letters sent by the inquiry officer. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the petitioner is aggrieved with the dismissal order dated 27th March 2025. This court has noticed from the records, as well as the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, that no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner after instituting the inquiry proceedings in the year 2006, which has also not been refuted by the counsel for the District Basic Education Officer. The rules, as well as the settled proposition of law, clearly provides that the delinquent employee shall be served with a charge sheet in nutshell and evidence, which the employer is relying upon shall also be furnished along with the charge sheet, whereas in the present case, the charge sheet has not been served upon the petitioner, and without serving the charge sheet, the employer has proceeded against the petitioner. Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which is application to the petitioner, reads as under:- "7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - Before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner : (i) The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. (ii)The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the disciplinary authority : Provided that where the appointing authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary; as the case may be, of the concerned department. (iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet. (iv) The charged Government servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the 4 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 date of issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex parte. (v) The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation : Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer. (vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission. (vii) Where the charged Government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence : Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. (viii) The Inquiry Officer may summon any witness to give evidence or require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976. (ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges. 5 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 (x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant. (xi) The disciplinary authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by an order appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (xii) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner of the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits : Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases : (i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules." In view of the above, this Court finds that there is total failure of the inquiry officer, to serve the charge sheet upon the petitioner, whereas on the contrary, the dismissal order has been passed. Consequently, the order impugned dated 27th March 2025 is hereby quashed. The respondent no.2 is given liberty to proceed from the stage of issuing the charge sheet against the petitioner, if he so desires. If respondent no.2 chooses to proceed with the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner, he shall furnish the charge sheet to the petitioner within two weeks and if the 6 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 petitioner receives the charge sheet, the same shall be replied within further period of two weeks. The inquiry proceedings shall be concluded within a period of three months. The petitioner shall also cooperate in the inquiry proceedings. In the meantime, the subsistence allowance from the date it was stopped, shall be paid to the petitioner, for each and every month, subject to the petitioner submit a certificate of of his non-employment, elsewhere. The back wages shall be subject to the final outcome of the inquiry proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is hereby allowed. December 9, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 23rd of September 2000, on compassionate ground and he joined and thereafter, he completed BTC training in 2005 and was granted pay scale of trained Assistant Teacher with effect from the 6th August 2005. Further submission is that the Assistant Basic Education Officer passed an order on 13th November 2003, by which the petitioner was appointed as In-charge along with one Moinuddin for the construction of Sarai Mihi School building, under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Scheme, 2003-04. Thereafter, a complaint was made regarding irregularities and embezzlement of certain amount in the construction of the school building, and an FIR was also lodged against him and the charge sheet was filed in furtherance of the First Information Report 2 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 on the 6th March 2007, and the matter is still pending consideration before the trial court. Adding his argument, he submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on the 26th April 2006, while contemplating a departmental inquiry and Smt. Kamala Verma, the Deputy Basic Education Officer, was appointed as the inquiry officer, but no charge sheet has ever been served upon the petitioner, even after passing of 19 years. She further submitted that the petitioner was attached and he was never involved in any other employment during this period. He further submitted that the subsistence allowance to the petitioner was stopped since 1st June 2020, and after passing of about more than five years, no subsistence allowance has been given. He further argued that the inquiry officer did not complete the inquiry proceedings, even a direction was made by respondent no.2 to conclude the inquiry in the year 2023, rather, all of a sudden, without associating the petitioner and serving thecharge sheet, the enquiry officer submitted an inquiry report on 30th September 2023, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order on 27th March 2025. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry proceeding has been conducted de horsing the rules, as no charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, and the inquiry proceeding has been conducted without associating the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgments aforesaid. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that since the inquiry proceeding is against the rules as well as the settled proposition of law and, therefore, the same is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. Per contra, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has tried to save the orders, but he has failed to refute the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no charge sheet has been served upon 3 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 the petitioner though he contradicted to the limited extent that the petitioner did not respond to any of the letters sent by the inquiry officer. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the petitioner is aggrieved with the dismissal order dated 27th March 2025. This court has noticed from the records, as well as the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, that no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner after instituting the inquiry proceedings in the year 2006, which has also not been refuted by the counsel for the District Basic Education Officer. The rules, as well as the settled proposition of law, clearly provides that the delinquent employee shall be served with a charge sheet in nutshell and evidence, which the employer is relying upon shall also be furnished along with the charge sheet, whereas in the present case, the charge sheet has not been served upon the petitioner, and without serving the charge sheet, the employer has proceeded against the petitioner. Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which is application to the petitioner, reads as under:- "7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - Before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner : (i) The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. (ii)The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the disciplinary authority : Provided that where the appointing authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary; as the case may be, of the concerned department. (iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet. (iv) The charged Government servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the 4 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 date of issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex parte. (v) The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation : Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer. (vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission. (vii) Where the charged Government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence : Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. (viii) The Inquiry Officer may summon any witness to give evidence or require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976. (ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges. 5 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 (x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant. (xi) The disciplinary authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by an order appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (xii) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner of the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits : Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases : (i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules." In view of the above, this Court finds that there is total failure of the inquiry officer, to serve the charge sheet upon the petitioner, whereas on the contrary, the dismissal order has been passed. Consequently, the order impugned dated 27th March 2025 is hereby quashed. The respondent no.2 is given liberty to proceed from the stage of issuing the charge sheet against the petitioner, if he so desires. If respondent no.2 chooses to proceed with the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner, he shall furnish the charge sheet to the petitioner within two weeks and if the 6 WRIA No. 13971 of 2025 petitioner receives the charge sheet, the same shall be replied within further period of two weeks. The inquiry proceedings shall be concluded within a period of three months. The petitioner shall also cooperate in the inquiry proceedings. In the meantime, the subsistence allowance from the date it was stopped, shall be paid to the petitioner, for each and every month, subject to the petitioner submit a certificate of of his non-employment, elsewhere. The back wages shall be subject to the final outcome of the inquiry proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is hereby allowed. December 9, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench