Allowed

Anand Prakash Chaurasia v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2025WRIA/6024/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A disciplinary punishment order under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is vitiated where no date, time or venue was fixed for oral enquiry, witnesses were not examined, and neither enquiry report nor opportunity of hearing was given to the delinquent, contrary to Rule 7. The High Court quashed the punishment order dated 30.04.2024 and remitted the matter for a de novo enquiry from the stage of receiving the defence reply to the charge-sheet, with a direction that it be completed preferably within three months; the petitioner was directed to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned punishment order dated 30.04.2024 quashed; matter remanded for de novo enquiry from the stage of defence reply within three months.

Anand Prakash Chaurasia vs State of U.P. Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31561

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6024 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Chaurasia Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Prakash Chaurasia,Nisha Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Nisha Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 9.

¶8

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

¶9

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned the impugned punishment order dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the respondent no. 2.

¶10

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to release the arrears of salary in favour of the petitioner which have become due owing to the pendency of the impugned disciplinary proceedings."

¶11

While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 has been passed in gross violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, as neither the copy of the enquiry report dated 08.06.2023 was ever supplied to the Petitioner, nor was he granted any opportunity of hearing either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority, i.e., Respondent No. 2, prior to the imposition of a major penalty. No date, time, or venue was ever fixed by the enquiry officer for holding the enquiry, examining witnesses, or producing documents, despite repeated requests made by the Petitioner in all his responses during the enquiry. This is in blatant disregard of the circular dated 10.02.2021 issued by Respondent No. 1 and renders Respondent No. 2 liable for disciplinary action under the Government Order dated 10.08.2022, which was issued pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 10331/2022, State of U.P. and Ors. v. Vijaya

¶12

Nand Tiwari , in this regard reliance is being placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 , wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

¶13

"15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha, supra are as follows:-

¶14

"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.

¶15

33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet."

¶16

On being confronted the learned counsel for the opposite parties as to how the departmental enquiry has been conducted and concluded following the due procedure of law inasmuch as there is no recital in the inpugned order as to whether the date time and place has been fixed to conduct the oral enquiry to prove the charge, Prashant Kumar Singh has stated that in the impugned order, there is no recital to that effect.

¶17

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that after receiving the defence reply to the charge-sheet, the enquiry has been concluded without affording an ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in terms of Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

¶18

Prima facie, it appears that there is apparent error on the face of the impugned order, therefore, I hereby set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 on the aforesaid ground alone.

¶19

Consequences to follow.

¶20

However, the matter is relegated to the disciplinary authority/enquiry officer to conduct a de novo enquiry from the stage of defect in the departmental enquiry. To be more precise, from the stage of receiving the defence reply to the chargesheet. The de novo enquiry may be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by fixing date, time and place to conduct the oral enquiry to prove the charge in terms of Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as well as the settled proposition of law settled by the Apex Court in catina of cases, with expedition, preferably, within a period of three months. Thereafter, the enquiry report may be submitted before the disciplinary authority who may pass final order providing the copy of the enquiry report seeking explanation from the petitioner, with expedition.

¶21

It is needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate in the departmental enquiry properly and shall not take unnecessary adjournments, inasmuch as without proper cooperation of the petitioner, the departmental enquiry can not be concluded to its logical conclusion.

¶22

The writ petition is allowed on the aforesaid grounds alone.

¶23

Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Anurag

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anand Prakash Chaurasia v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Prakash Chaurasia v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M of Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College ,Telibagh , Lko. Thru. Manager Srikant Sahu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Arun Kumar Mehta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4, Lucknow and 2 Others

Ram Chandra Gautam vs C/M Ram Bharose Maikulal Inter College Lko. Thru. Manager Sri Kant Sahu and Another

Dr. Devashish Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Prem Shanker Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecomm. Ministry Communications New Delhi and 2 Others

Kumari Neeraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others