Allowed¶56

Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra v. Union of India, Deptt. of Health Thru. Secy. (Health) New Delhi and 7 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2025WRIA/8516/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chargesheet prejudging guilt; article of charges / show cause vitiated by bias and unfairness; 'idle ceremony'; Oryx Fisheries (2010) 13 SCC 427 applied; Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam (2001) 1 SCC 182 referred within quoted extract; Rule 3(1)(i)-(iii) CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964; AIIMS Raebareli; Assistant Professor Urology; disciplinary inquiry; writ allowed; Office Memorandum and chargesheet dated 06.07.2025 set aside; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:49651.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Office Memorandum dated 06.07.2025 and impugned chargesheet / article of charges dated 06.07.2025 set aside; respondents left free to proceed in accordance with law. ¶56

Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra Vs Union of India, Deptt. of Health Thru. Secy. (Health) New Delhi and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Office Memorandum dated 06.07.2025 and impugned chargesheet / article of charges dated 06.07.2025 set aside; respondents left free to proceed in accordance with law.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the Office Memorandum dated 06.07.2025 and the chargesheet / article of charges prejudged the petitioner's guilt at the stage of issuance, thereby vitiating the disciplinary proceedings by unfairness and bias.

¶9

Court's answer

From the language of the article of charges ('found misconduct of sending fake email...' and 'accordingly guilty of having violated...'), it is apparent that the guilt of the petitioner had already been prejudged at the time of issuance of the impugned Office Memorandum.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Because the respondents prejudged the petitioner's guilt in the Office Memorandum, the impugned Office Memorandum is vitiated in the eyes of law, in keeping with the settled position laid down by the Supreme Court in Oryx Fisheries.

¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - A No. 8516 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 4; decided 22.8.2025 by Abdul Moin, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:49651). Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Assistant Professor, Urology, AIIMS Raebareli, challenged the Office Memorandum dated 06.07.2025 and the chargesheet / article of charges dated 06.07.2025 issued by respondent no. 4, which recorded that he 'has been found misconduct of sending fake email complaints' and was 'accordingly guilty of having violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964'. Holding that the article of charges showed the petitioner's guilt had been prejudged at the very stage of issuance, the court, applying Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427, held the impugned Office Memorandum vitiated by unfairness and bias. Writ petition allowed; the Office Memorandum and chargesheet were set aside, with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49651

¶3

Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8516 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra Respondent :- Union Of India, Deptt. Of Health Thru. Secy. (Health) New Delhi And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Poornendra Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

1. Heard Shri V. K. Updadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri T. N. Upadhyay and Shri Poornendra Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5.

¶6

2. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶7

3. Under challenge is the Office Memorandum dated 06.07.2025 and the chargesheet / article of charges dated 06.07.2025 issued by respondents no. 4, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. A further prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to harass the petitioner in any manner and not to interfere in the smooth functioning of the petitioner as Assistant Professor, Urology.

¶8

4. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts of the case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor, Urology in the AIIMS, Raebareli. He has been issued with the Office Memorandum dated 06.07.2025 and the chargesheet / article of charges dated 06.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition.

¶9

5. The thrust of argument of learned Senior Advocate is that a perusal of article of charges would indicate that the disciplinary authority has already found the misconduct against the petitioner and has also held him guilty of having violated Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 and thus the guilt of the petitioner has been prejudged and consequently this indicates that the disciplinary authority is sitting with a prejudged notion of guilt of the petitioner and accordingly in

¶10

WRIA No. 8516 of 2025

¶11

¶12

the inquiry proceedings which are being conducted against him, he would not get a fair hearing. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has placing reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427.

¶13

6. On the other hand, Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate learned counsel for the respondents has argued that it is only a chargesheet which has been issued to the petitioner and merely because the language of the chargesheet indicates that the disciplinary authority has indicated that the petitioner has been found guilty of certain charges the same would not resile away from the fact that the respondents are in fact going to hold an inquiry into the matter and the petitioner would always have an opportunity of putting forward his defence which would be considered in accordance with law.

¶14

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that the petitioner who is working as Assistant Professor, Urology is aggrieved by the Office Memorandum dated 06.07.2025 and the article of charges. The article of charges on reproduction reads as follows:

¶15

STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGES AGAINST DR. AMIT KUMAR MISHRA, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPT. OF UROLOGY AT THE AIIMS RAEBARELI

¶16

ARTICLE OF CHARGES

¶17

(I) That the said Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Urology in this Institute has been found misconduct of sending fake email complaints against Executive Director, Dean, AMS and other officials.

¶18

Dr Amit Kumar Mishra, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Urology is accordingly guilty of having violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which requires every Government servant at all times to be followed."

¶19

(emphasis by Court)

¶20

WRIA No. 8516 of 2025

¶21

¶22

8. From perusal of the article of charges it emerges that the Executive Director i.e. the person who has issued the chargesheet in the name of the governing body of the institute has indicated that with the issuance of the chargesheet the petitioner has already been “found misconduct of sending fake email…” and “accordingly guilty of having violated…”. Thus it is apparent that the guilt of the petitioner has already been prejudged at the time of issuance of the impugned Office Memorandum.

¶23

9. In this regard it would be apt to refer to judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the category of Oryx Fisheries (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶24

"20. In the backdrop of these facts the first question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the respondents in cancelling the registration certificate of the appellant acted fairly and in compliance with principles of natural justice and also whether the respondents acted with an open mind.

¶25

22. For a proper appreciation of the points involved, the show cause notice is set out in extenso:

¶26

"Sub: Show-cause notice

¶27

Your attention is invited to our HQ's letter No.IV/53/06-MS/HO dated 25.10.2007 and subsequent joint meeting with the buyer held at our Head office on 5th September, 2007 on the trade complaint received from M/s Cascade Marine Foods LLC, Sharjah.

¶28

At the meeting it was convincingly proved that the cargo shipped by you to the above mentioned buyer was defective and you have not so far settled the complaint. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me vide Office Order Part-II No.184012005 dated 25.11.2005 read with Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules, I hereby call upon you to show cause why the Certificate of Registration as an Exporter granted to you should not be cancelled for reasons given below:

¶29

1. It has been proved beyond doubt that you have sent substandard material to M/s Cascade Marine Foods, LLC, Sharjah.

¶30

2. You have dishonoured your written agreement with M/s Cascade Marine Foods, LLC, Sharjah to settle the complaint made by the buyer as you had agreed to compensate to the extent of the value of defective cargo sent by you and have now evaded from the responsibility.

¶31

3. This irresponsible action have brought irreparable damage to India's trade relation with UAE.

¶32

WRIA No. 8516 of 2025

¶33

¶34

Your reply should reach the undersigned within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and we will proceed with action for cancellation of your registration certificate without further notice to you. If ultimately a decision is reached to deregister you under the provisions of the MPEDA Rules, it will automatically entail de-registration under Registration Exporters' policy also."

¶35

23. Relying on the underlined portions in the show cause notice, learned counsel for the appellant urged that even at the stage of the show cause notice the third respondent has completely made up his mind and reached definite conclusion about the alleged guilt of the appellant. This has rendered the subsequent proceedings an empty ritual and an idle formality.

¶36

24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show cause proceeding. A show cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice.

¶37

27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the chargesheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceeding become an idle ceremony.

¶38

28. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasijudicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasijudicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against. In the instant case from the underlined portion of the show cause notice it is clear that the third respondent has demonstrated a totally close mind at the stage of show cause notice itself. Such a close mind is inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 43 which is set out below. The aforesaid rule has been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 33 of The Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 and as such that Rule is statutory in nature.

¶39

31. It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be read hypertechnically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a showcause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause

¶40

WRIA No. 8516 of 2025

¶41

¶42

notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi- judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence.

¶43

32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show cause notice.

¶44

33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it.

¶45

34. A somewhat similar observation was made by this Court in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girja Shankar Pant & others, (2001) 1 SCC 182. In that case, this court was dealing with a show cause notice cum charge-sheet issued to an employee. While dealing with the same, this Court in paragraph 25 (page 198 of the report) by referring to the language in the show cause notice observed as follows:

¶46

"25. Upon consideration of the language in the show-cause notice-cumcharge-sheet, it has been very strongly contended that it is clear that the Officer concerned has a mindset even at the stage of framing of charges and we also do find some justification in such a submission since the chain is otherwise complete."

¶47

35. After paragraph 25, this Court discussed in detail the emerging law of bias in different jurisdictions and ultimately held in paragraph 35 (page 201 of the report), the true test of bias is:

¶48

"35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom -- in the event however the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained:"

¶49

35. Going by the aforesaid test any man of ordinary prudence would come to a conclusion that in the instant case the alleged guilt of the appellant has been prejudged at the stage of show cause notice itself."

¶50

(emphasis by Court)

¶51

WRIA No. 8516 of 2025

¶52

¶53

10. From perusal of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries (supra) it clearly emerges that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of the authority issuing the chargesheet he instead of indicating charges cannot confront an employee with the definite conclusion of his alleged guilt in as much as if that is done the entire proceedings initiated would get vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings would become an idle ceremony.

¶54

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that with the issuance of show cause notice, as had been issued in Oryx Fisheries (supra) , an impression is created that although he would get an effective opportunity of rebutting the allegations contained in the show cause notice and to prove his innocence but if on a reasonable reading of the show cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling of the reply of show cause notice being only an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinions then such show cause notice would not commence a fair procedure specifically issued in quasi judicial proceedings under statutory Regulation in as much as the authority has to keep an open mind and to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against.

¶55

12. As already indicated above, from perusal of Office Memorandum which has been issued to the petitioner the respondents have already prejudged the guilt of the petitioner with the use of the words “found misconduct of sending fake email…” and “accordingly guilty of having violated…”. Thus the impugned Office Memorandum can be said to be vitiated in the eyes of law keeping in view settled position of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries (supra) .

¶56

13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned Office Memorandum dated 06.07.2025 and impugned chargesheet / article of charges dated 06.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, are set aside.

¶57

14. However it would be open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

¶58

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 J. K. Dinkar

¶59

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra v. Union of India, Deptt. of Health Thru. Secy. (Health) New Delhi and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra v. Union of India, Deptt. of Health Thru. Secy. (Health) New Delhi and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs Union of India Throu Secy.Ministry of C.a.F.and P.D.Lko.and Ors.

Vijay Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Arun Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Devendra Kumar Vs State Ofu.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko. and 3 Others

Hari Shankar Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Om Prakash Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others