State of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development, Lko. and 5 Others vs Mohit Dixit and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 276 of 2025

State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Lucknow and 5 others

¶4

…..Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mohit Dixit and another

¶7

	…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: V.P. Nag (A.C.S.C.)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶8

Chief Justice's Court

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

The appeal is barred by 264 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed.

¶11

For the reasons indicated in the application, supported by affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶12

This appeal is directed against order dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 7436 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed and orders dated 07.06.2024 passed by appellant no.4 and 31.08.2020 passed by appellant no.5 have been quashed.

¶13

The petition was filed seeking to question the validity of order of punishment dated 31.08.2020 passed by District Development Officer, Lucknow, whereby respondent was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and order dated 07.06.2024

¶14

2

¶15

SPLAD No. - 276 of 2025

¶16

passed by Chief Development Officer, Lucknow, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent has been dismissed.

¶17

A charge sheet was issued to the respondent wherein the Inquiry Officer on 16.03.2020 gave inquiry report and found none of the charges as proved.

¶18

The Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 19.03.2020, came to the conclusion that the inquiry report was not based on facts and was incomplete and appointed another Inquiry Officer, and sought fresh report.

¶19

The second Inquiry Officer also submitted inquiry report on 08.07.2020 and found the charges as not proved.

¶20

The Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 31.08.2020, by indicating that after going through the report the respondent was found guilty of not following the orders of higher officers, performing official work arbitrarily and misleading the office, imposed punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect.

¶21

Aggrieved of the said order, appeal was filed which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 07.06.2024.

¶22

Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed inter alia questioning the validity of the orders passed for violation of provisions of Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 ('Rules, 1999').

¶23

Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, found the orders in violation of provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999 and consequently, quashed the orders impugned.

¶24

Counsel for the appellants made submissions that learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the orders impugned. Submissions have been made that even if the orders were quashed for non-compliance

¶25

3

¶26

SPLAD No. - 276 of 2025

¶27

of provisions of Rules, 1999, the matter should have been remanded back at the stage where the non-compliance took place and quashing of the orders was not justified.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned.

¶29

We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

¶30

Admittedly, both Inquiry Officers, one after the other, found none of the charges proved against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority, by order impugned dated 31.08.2020 only observed as under:

¶31

"आचा�र्य�, क्षे�त्री�र्य ग्रा�म्र्य वि�का�स स�स्था�न, बी�०का�०टी�० लखनऊ / जां��चा अधि�का�री� न� अपन� पत्री स�ख्र्य� 193 दि$न��का 08.07.2020 द्वा�री� जां��चा आख्र्य� प्रे�वि'त का) गर्य� जां��चा अधि�का�री� द्वा�री� प्रेस्त+त जां��चा आख्र्य� का� अ�ल,कान,परी�न्त प�र्य� गर्य� दिका श्री� $�क्षिक्षेत उच्चा�धि�का�रिरीर्य3 का� आ$�शो, का� अन+प�लन न कारीन�, मनम�न� ढं�ग स� शो�सका)र्य का�र्य� कारीन� ए�� का�र्य��लर्य का, ग+मरी�ह कारीन� का� $,'� ह9। अत: श्री� म,दिहत $�क्षिक्षेत , काधिनष्ठ सह�र्यका का� वि�रुद्ध प्रेचाधिलत वि�भा�ग�र्य अन+शो�सन�त्मका का�र्य � �ह� सम�प्त कारीत� ह+ए श्री� म,दिहत $�क्षिक्षेत का, वि�का�स खण्ड म�ल मC त9न�त रीखत� ह+ए धिनम्न $ण्ड का� स�था अक्षिन्तम रुप स� स��तन बीह�ल दिकार्य� जां�त� ह9:-

¶32

1-श्री� $�क्षिक्षेत का) एका ��तन �Dविद्ध स्था�र्य� रूप स� री,का) जां�त� ह9।"

¶33

It would be seen that the Disciplinary Authority has made reference to the inquiry report and has not even indicated that Inquiry Officer has found none of the charges proved and by indicating the respondent guilty of charges, has imposed the punishment.

¶34

Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1999 provides that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded and under sub-rule (4), if the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 of the Rules, 1999 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he is required to give a copy of the inquiry

¶35

4

¶36

SPLAD No. - 276 of 2025

¶37

report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time.

¶38

Admittedly, the requirements of sub-rule (2) & (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999 have not been complied with, rather ex facie violated by the Disciplinary Authority neither any reasons were recorded nor any notice was issued to the respondent. The Appellate Authority did not care for the violation of the statutory Rules and upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the orders impugned.

¶39

So far as the plea raised that the matter should have been remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for recording reasons under sub-rule (2) and give notice of his disagreement under sub-rule (4) is concerned, the said situation of remand may arise in a case where it is found that though the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its reasons for disagreement, it has not issued the notice before imposing the penalty. However, from the order quoted herein before, it would be seen that no reasons worth the name have been recorded for the disagreement in the order impugned dated 31.08.2020 and therefore, there is no question of now remanding the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for passing a fresh order of disagreement and then issue notice.

¶40

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned.

¶41

There is no substance in the appeal, the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶42

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶43

February 19, 2026 AHA

¶44

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development, Lko. and 5 Others v. Mohit Dixit and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development, Lko. and 5 Others v. Mohit Dixit and Another

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

Gautam vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Minstry for Law Lko. and 3 Others

Jamuna Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Charandip Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko and 5 Others

The Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko and 2 Others vs Manish Kumar

Rais Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

U.P. Public Service Commission , Prayagraj Thru. Its Secy., Gandhi Marg, Prayagraj vs Dr. Mohd. Tarik and Another