Allowed

Vidhya Kishor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025WRIA/6576/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Circle Officer challenged reversion punishment order alleging denial of CD evidence during inquiry and premature social media declaration of punishment. Court held non-disclosure of CD material vitiated proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned punishment order set aside and matter remitted to Inquiry Officer to conclude inquiry within four months, ensuring petitioner receives copies of all material including CD before proceeding.

Vidhya Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10943

¶2

AFR

¶3

Court No. - 6

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6576 of 2023

¶5

Petitioner :- Vidhya Kishor

¶6

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And 5 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Charitra Pandey,Shashank Pandey

¶8

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya)

¶9

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶10

Heard Sri Ram Charitra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sandeep Chandra, alongwith Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Raj Kumar Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was working on the post of Circle Officer in District - Rampur at the relevant point of time has approached this Court assailing an order of punishment dated 11.08.2023, passed against him in disciplinary proceedings whereby he has been inflicted with punishment of reversion to the original post ( Mool Pad ).

¶12

It has been next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer at district Rampur, disciplinary proceedings which related to an incident occurred on 05.04.2021, where one Smt. Sadhna Singh R/o district Bareilly gave an application to the Circle Officer (petition) on 05.04.2021 at Police Station - Police Lines for lodging first information report, but the petitioner did not take any action on the said application. Subsequently, complainant moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Rampur and also to the higher officials, but still first information report was not lodged and it is only subsequently, when Superintendent of Police was transferred that the said first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 404 of 2021, under Sections 376D, 323, 326, 506, 406 IPC, at Police Station - Ganj, District - Rampur.

¶13

It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the

¶14

petitioner that to investigate the said offence SIT was also constituted. Through SIT investigation, it came to knowledge of the authorities that bribe of Rs.35,00,000/- was taken by the Circle Officer and in the said video it was seen that it was the petitioner who demanded illegal gratification and when the aforesaid facts came to light, decision was taken by the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioner.

¶15

The inquiry proceedings were initiated and the petitioner was afforded opportunity to defend himself and he also submitted reply denying all the charges and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 08.08.2022, holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges levelled against him. The petitioner was issued show cause notice alongwith copy of inquiry report, to which he replied on 19.09.2022 and ultimately impugned order of punishment was passed on 11.08.2023.

¶16

It has been submitted that prior to punishment order being passed the State Government had taken approval of the U.P. Public Service Commission as provided for in the relevant rules.

¶17

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that inquiry report as well as punishment order are vitiated and on account of the fact that firstly the State Government on its Twitter Handel has published that the order of punishment has been passed against petitioner on 11.11.2022 itself, which was prior to passing of impugned order on 11.08.2023. It is submitted that clearly the respondents had already taken decision to punish the petitioner and proceedings conducted against him were merely sequel to the decision taken by the respondents, and accordingly entire exercise was illegal and arbitrary and without any application of mind.

¶18

The second ground raised by the petitioner for assailing the aforesaid proceedings is that once all the material on the basis of which petitioner has been inflicted with punishment in the disciplinary proceedings is the compact disc (CD) on which it is alleged that petitioner can be seen discussing the said issue and also demanding bribe, and copy of the same was never provided to the petitioner and is not part of the inquiry report.

¶19

In this regard it is stated that there is no dispute that original CD had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its authentication, but till the time inquiry was conducted report of Forensic Science Laboratory was not available and therefore despite requests having been made copy of the said CD was never provided to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the

¶20

inquiry proceedings concluded by considering various statements which were available with the Inquiry Officer and there is no mention of the CD by the Inquiry Officer in his entire report. It is for this reason that the Inquiry Officer never considered the material available on the CD. It is undisputed that report of Forensic Science Laboratory was received on 27.01.2023 which much after the submission of the inquiry report on 08.08.2022. Surprisingly, it is after submission of reply by the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order has considered all the aspects of the CD and held that allegations contained therein to be verified and from which he has upheld the veracity of the charges levelled against the petitioner.

¶21

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner was never confronted with the contents of the CD and nor was he provided a copy of the same during the inquiry proceedings.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid arguments it is also clear that the Disciplinary Authority instead of confining himself to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer has proceeded further and even considered the contents of the CD which are not available till the stage of inquiry proceedings.

¶23

We find force in the contentions raised by the petitioner that even if the Disciplinary Authority has to consider the contents of the CD, it was necessary for him to give notice to the petitioner alongwith a copy of the CD and confront the petitioner with regard to the contents thereof and only after receiving response of the petitioner, could he have proceeded to deal with the contents of the CD in his order of punishment. By not providing copy of CD and on the other hand considering the contents of the same against the petitioner has vitiated the entire inquiry proceedings.

¶24

Considering the other ground raised by the petitioner is with regard to publication of the proposed punishment on the twitter handle, we do not find much force inasmuch as, undoubtedly the inquiry report was submitted on 08.08.2022 and as the appointing authority of the petitioner is the State Government, it was within their domain to pass order with regard to punishment of the petitioner.

¶25

The State Government by means of letter dated 09.11.2022 took decision with regard to the punishment to be inflicted upon the petitioner sent their proposal to the U.P. Public Service Commissioner for its approval. Clearly, by 09.11.2022, decision has been taken with regard to the punishment having been inflicted upon the petitioner and it is only after approval of the

¶26

Public Service Commissioner that formal order was issued on 11.08.2023. This Court is of the considered view that it is in the aforesaid circumstances, that decision was taken by the State Government, but that decision was not final and was subject to the approval of the Public Service Commissioner and could not have published on the twitter handle. Even if the decision of the Government was published, it does not indicate that the decision is malafide or the proceedings have been vitiated, inasmuch as, there is no doubt that decision was infact been taken by the State Government with regard to punishment inflicted on the petitioner.

¶27

Accordingly, considering the aforesaid fact and specially the fact that relevant material, in the aforesaid circumstances which is contained in the CD were not given to the petitioner, is a ground sufficient in itself to set aside the inquiry proceedings and accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 is hereby set aside.

¶28

The matter is remitted to the Inquiry Officer to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of submission of charge sheet. In case respondent wish to rely upon any other material including the CD, it would be necessary for them to give a copy of the same to the petitioner before proceeding ahead with the inquiry in accordance with law.

¶29

Considering that much time has lapsed since inflicting punishment upon the petitioner, the respondents are directed to conclude the inquiry proceedings expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶30

The writ petition stands allowed .

¶31

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 A. Verma

¶32

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶33

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

Vidhya Kishor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhya Kishor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishn Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Medical Health Family Welfare ) U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Dheeraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Forest Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Sarva Sri Khan Brick Industry,Gonda Thru. Owner Sri Masihul Hasan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance, Lucknow and Others

Durgesh Kumar Bajpai @ Durgesh Bajpai and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Ranjana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare and 4 Others