State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Cane Development and Sugar Industries Deptt.Lko. and 4 Others vs Ashish Saini and 4 Others

Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

This is an appeal where the employer is challenging the judgement and order dated dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶13

By means of the impugned judgement, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner and has quashed three orders, i.e., 12.04.2024, 26.04.2024 and 30.04.2024. The order dated 12.04.2024 deals with the entitlement of the respondent-petitioner to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. It declines the entitlement. The order dated 26.04.2024 is the order by which the respondent-petitioner who was working as Senior Assistant in the District Cane Officer and by virtue of that capacity was also discharging the duties as Senior Assistant in the Cane Development Council, Gajraula and Chandanpur, was dismissed from service. The order dated 30.04.2024 is the order by which a decision was taken to institute suit proceedings for recovery of an amount which as alleged was embezzled or misappropriated by the respondent-petitioner.

¶14

Although there was remedy of appeal, but instead of preferring the same, a writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid orders on the ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice.

¶15

SPLA No. 35 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Having gone through the impugned judgement, we find that the it does not consider validity of the order dated 12.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 but merely confines itself to validity of the dismissal order dated 26.04.2024. In spite of it, the orders dated 12.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 have also been quashed.

¶18

Further, before the learned Single Judge, opportunity was given to the appellants only to file a short counter affidavit that too on the question of maintainability of the writ petition. The said short counter affidavit was filed taking the said objection and in that context some reference was also made as to the compliance of principles of natural justice, but documents which were part of the disciplinary proceedings were not on record of the writ Court. During course of argument, as the writ Court was not satisfied with regard to non maintainability of the writ petition, a request was made by the learned counsel for the appellant for being granted time to file a detailed reply as is mentioned in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgement but the same was declined on the ground that all relevant documentation is already on record as evident by the impugned order and only the aspect of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 being followed or not is under question.

¶19

The learned Single Judge was persuaded to allow the writ petition on the ground that the enquiry Officer had merely considered the preliminary enquiry report and has not independently applied his mind to the evidence on record, secondly, there was no oral enquiry.

¶20

The contention of the counsel for the appellant before us was that an opportunity to file a counter affidavit should have been given in a matter such as the case at hand, wherein, the allegations against the respondentpetitioner were very serious. There were 14 allegations and many of which were with regard to transfer of public money to the petitioner's own account or that to the account of his mother or wife and its misuse. It was also contended that along with the charge-sheet not only copy of preliminary enquiry report but the documents which were relevant to it were also annexed. Apart from it there were other documents/evidence which were also annexed. All these documents which were annexed with the charge-sheet were duly served and it is nobody's case that the

¶21

SPLA No. 35 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

documents annexed with the charge-sheet were not served but in spite of it, the respondent-petitioner never denied the charges nor the veracity of these documents which included the statement of bank account of the respondent petitioner himself, which was itself sufficient evidence of the transactions involving transfer of public money to the respondentpetitioner's account as alleged in the charge-sheet. The respondent petitioner did not cooperate in the enquiry and kept demanding additional documents running into about 1113 pages which were also provided to him and receiving by the respondent-petitioner was also available but after going through some of the records, he returned the documents and then set up a case that the documents were not supplied only with a view to prolong the enquiry proceedings and make out a case for violation of natural justice. This is evident from perusal of enquiry report which deals with this aspect extensively, therefore, this was not a case which should have been decided by the learned Single Judge without any opportunity to file a detailed counter affidavit and bring on record the proceedings of enquiry and all documents which were part of the charge-sheet. The conduct of the respondent-petitioner was also a relevant aspect in the matter, especially as, it was the case of the appellants that money to the tune of crores of rupees transferred from the public funds of the appellants to private accounts of the respondent-petitioner and his family member was established from the bank statement of the respondent-petitioner which had not been denied, therefore, this was an aspect which should have been kept in mind by the learned Single Judge but, instead of allowing an opportunity to file a detailed counter affidavit, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. There were various issues of importance involved, such as defalcation of huge amount of public money by the respondent-petitioner who held the same in trust and there were documentary evidence in this regard. The conduct of the respondentpetitioner was also to be seen by the learned Single Judge in this context which has not been done.

¶24

Per contra, Sri Ashwani Kumar, appearing for the respondent-petitioner submitted that the documents which were being demanded by his client were relevant to establish that it was a settled practice in the appellant department of making payment for Government work by depositing

¶25

SPLA No. 35 of 2026

¶26

4

¶27

money in the private account of officials as an advance and then that official used to make the payment mostly by cash. Moreover he submitted that bare perusal of the enquiry report will show that the enquiry officer has relied only on the preliminary enquiry report which in view of the settled legal position could not have been done. There is no independent application of mind by the enquiry officer.

¶28

On being asked to show any denial of the charge-sheet in his letter dated 29.06.2023, learned counsel submitted that he would have submitted the denial after being provided the documents being demanded and the respondent-petitioner never admitted the charges. He however did not deny the fact that whatever documents were referred in the chargesheet including the preliminary enquiry reort and its annexures, they were served upon him. The respondent-petitioners wanted additional documents to submit a proper reply, which was never given to him, therefore, according to him, learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition on the ground of violation of Rule 7 of The U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the principles of natural justice.

¶29

It was also the contention of the appellants' counsel that the learned Single Judge on the question as to whether the additional documents being demanded by the respondent-petitioner had been furnished to him or not, has himself recorded that this was a disputed question of fact which can not be gone into the writ petition, therefore, if it was so then the learned single judge should not have proceeded to decide the writ petition in a factual vacuum without taking into consideration the said aspect and should have relegated the writ petition to the remedy of appeal or at best before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal and should not have to decided the writ petition in the manner in which it has been decided.

¶30

We have gone through the enquiry report and of the opinion that the findings of the learned Single Judge that enquiry officer had relied only on the preliminary enquiry report does not appear to be correct. In fact we find that what has been referred by the inquiry officer in his enquiry report is that the evidence adduced and annexed with the preliminary enquiry report has been carefully examined/scrutinized whether

¶31

SPLA No. 35 of 2026

¶32

5

¶33

consideration by the enquiry officer of the evidence on record etc. and the findings recorded are referable to any documents or not, is another issue on which we would not like to express any opinion as learned Single Judge did not go into it but we only want to say that the learned Single Judge proceeded as if the entire enquiry report is based only on the preliminary enquiry report which is factually incorrect.

¶34

We also take note of the fact that the learned Single Judge has himself recorded in paragraph 12 of his judgement that the question as to whether the additional documents which the appellant herein claimed to have been supplied to the respondent-petitioner, a fact which has been denied by the latter, is a disputed question of fact, then, learned Single Judge should have proceed to consider as to how far those documents were relevant, secondly, whether the charges were made out on the basis of documents which were annexed with the charge-sheet and had been furnished to the respondent-petitioner or not, specially if there are official documents and how far they are required to be proved specially in the context of bank statement of the respondent-petitioner's account, in the absence of any denial of their veracity but, instead of doing so, the learned Single Judge was persuaded by the fact, firstly, that the entire enquiry report was based only on the preliminary enquiry report which we have already held to be incorrect, secondly, that there was no oral enquiry. In this context, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the enquiry report itself speaks of the fact that the respondent-petitioner though he did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet on merits and did not deny the charges, did participate in the enquiry but did not cooperate therein, rather he kept on insisting about the additional documents which according to the appellants had already been supplied, therefore, the conduct of the officers respondentpetitioner in this regard are also very relevant. We are of the opinion in this regard also that learned Single Judge should have considered the conduct of the respondent-petitioner.

¶35

During course of hearing our attention has been invited to paragraph 16 of writ petition, which reads as under:-

¶36

"16. That, in respect of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it is respectfully submitted that the money, which was transferred in the account of the petitioner,

¶37

SPLA No. 35 of 2026

¶38

6

¶39

either by the District Cane Officer, Amroha or the Senior Cane Development Inspector, Amroha, or both of them, who were duly empowered for transferring the aforesaid amount, and the said amount was given to the petitioner in the form of an advance (Agrim), and, in doing so, the petitioner was directed by them to withdraw the money his account and pay the dues towards the official work as well as payment towards other expenditure incurred on the official work, i.e. office expenditure, labour cess, women help groups, excavation and mud reinforcement construction, dead-stock, development and extension work and payment towards Mexphalt and Emulsion and the details of the payments, so made, were duly entered in the Cash Book, fromwhere, the said payments were duly verified. The advance was purposely given to the petitioner or employees with a view to remove the hardship of the Department by making payment towards the financial and other contingency expenditures, to be incurred in various business activities related to the Department. The aforesaid procedure was/is prevalent in the Office of the District Cane Officer, Amroha, since long time, and, therefore, in the interest of the departmental work, the amount was duly transferred by the District Cane Officer, Amroha as well as the Senior Cane Development Inspector, Gajraula and Chandanpur, District Amroha."

¶40

In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner has given some explanation regarding the money deposited in his account as alleged in the charge-sheet. According to him, the said amount was given to him in the form of advance and in doing so the respondent-petitioner was directed by the higher officials to withdraw the money from his account and pay the dues towards official work as well as payment towards other expenditure incurred in connection with official work, i.e., official expenditure, labour cess, women help groups, excavation and mud reinforcement construction, dead-stock, etc. We do not want to go into this explanation offered by the respondent-petitioner as this has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge but we are compelled to say that this stand of the respondent-petitioner in the writ petition should have also been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge to consider his conduct and how far based on these submissions the principles of natural justice and Rule 7 would apply. The allegation against the officers of transferring crores of rupees to his personal/family bank accounts.

¶41

Suffice it to say that this is not a case where the writ petition should

¶42

SPLA No. 35 of 2026

¶43

7

¶44

have been decided only after asking the appellant opposite party to file a short counter affidavit on the question of maintainability and then when the appellants wanted to file a detailed counter affidavit bringing on record their version of the story supported by documentary proof, including the proceedings of enquiry and the documents annexed with the charge-sheet as seen during enquiry, the same was denied by the writ Court which proceeded to decide the writ petition, wrongly so.

¶45

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the charges and the stand taken by the respondent-petitioner all of which will have to be seen as far as necessary and permissible by the writ Court, we are of the opinion that the manner in which the writ Court has decided the writ petition leaves a lot to be desired purely in the facts of the case. Considering the nature of allegations and the documentary evidence available with the appellants herein they should have been examined by the writ Court. The original records were also not summoned to see as to how the enquriy proceeded and what was the documentary evidence available, how far the respondent-petitioner cooperated in the enquiry, if not then what would be the consequences in law, etc. in this regard, therefore, for all these reasons we set aside the impugned judgement and direct that the writ petition be listed a fresh on 18.05.2026, within top ten cases of the day before the learned Single Judge having jurisdiction.

¶46

In the meantime, the appellant shall file a detailed counter affidavit to the writ petition by 06.05.2026.

¶47

The respondent-petitioner shall file rejoinder affidavit to the same within the next two weeks.

¶48

We request the learned Single Judge to hear and decide the writ petition a fresh. All pleas are open for consideration by the writ Court.

¶49

The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶50

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶51

April 6, 2026 Anurag

¶52

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

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Cane Development and Sugar Industries Deptt.Lko. and 4 Others v. Ashish Saini and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Cane Development and Sugar Industries Deptt.Lko. and 4 Others v. Ashish Saini and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Deptt. of Revenue Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko. and 5 Others vs Savitri Sonkar and Another

Emaar India Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko and 5 Others

Ruksana vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Environment Lko and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 4 Others vs Ravindra Kumar Srivastava and 6 Others

State of U.P. Thru.the Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others vs Keshav Ram and 9 Others

Chandan Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Women and Child Development Lko. and 3 Others