State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secretariat Administration and Another vs Om Prakash Kashyap

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, supported by an affidavit, seeking to indicate the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal in time, has been filed.

¶13

Counter affidavit has been filed questioning the sufficiency of reasons and relying on the fact that in the case of similarly placed delinquent employees, order dated 09.09.2022 has been quashed.

¶14

We have considered the submissions made in this regard and the indications made in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay, we find that the reasons indicated therein are sufficient to seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶15

Consequently, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶16

This appeal is directed against order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 6961 of 2024 whereby the learned

¶17

2

¶18

SPLAD No. - 86 of 2025

¶19

Single Judge has set aside the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority remitting the case for re-inquiry to the Inquiry Officer, however, the Court has left it open for the Disciplinary Authority to assign specific reason as to why such Departmental Inquiry which has been concluded on 09.09.2022 was faulty or to issue a show cause notice on the point of disagreement qua the findings of the Inquiry Officer in terms of Rule 9 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, 'the Rules, 1999').

¶20

The writ petition was filed by the respondent questioning the validity of orders dated 09.09.2022, 19.05.2022 and modified order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the appellants whereby the Disciplinary Authority remitted back the case for re-inquiry to the Inquiry Officer, respondent was accorded provisional pension at 50% of the regular pension which order was modified to include an undertaking to refund, if paid in excess, respectively.

¶21

An inquiry was instituted against the respondent while placing him under suspension; the Inquiry Officer submitted report on 07.02.2022 whereafter the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority inter alia indicating that on examination of the inquiry report, it has been found that the Inquiry Officer has not thoroughly analyzed in the light of available evidence and has not given proper and sufficient reasons and, therefore, while taking a decision to hold re-inquiry appointed Special Secretary, Urban Development and Director Swachh Bharat Mission as Inquiry Officer. Whereafter, as noticed hereinbefore, the provisional pension was sanctioned in favour of the respondent and the order was modified, feeling aggrieved the writ petition was filed.

¶22

During the course of writ petition, it was pointed out on behalf of the appellants-State that pursuant to the order dated 09.09.2022, the Inquiry Officer has concluded the inquiry on 03.09.2024 and now the Disciplinary Authority has issued notice indicating two points on which

¶23

3

¶24

SPLAD No. - 86 of 2025

¶25

he had disagreement with the said Inquiry Report and the explanation/response has been sought from the respondent.

¶26

Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and noticing that in the case of two other officers, who were also charged along with the respondent i.e. Santosh Kumar Awasthi and Ram Naresh Tripathi, it was conceded in the writ petitions filed by the said two co-delinquent employees that the order dated 09.09.2022 whereby no specific reason was indicated on the aspect that the Disciplinary Authority is not agreeable on the finding of the inquiry report and as to why a fresh inquiry would be required, could not justify the order had allowed those petitions, quashed the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 and passed the directions as noticed hereinbefore.

¶27

Learned Standing Counsel made submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order impugned dated 09.09.2022 inasmuch as case of the respondent could not be compared with the other two employees who were still in service and the respondent had since retired.

¶28

Further submissions have been made that in fact the petition had been rendered infructuous on account submissions of the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer pursuant to order dated 09.09.2022 qua which disagreement had already been communicated to the respondent and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned.

¶30

We have considered he submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶31

The Disciplinary Authority, while seeking to remit the case to the Inquiry Officer after the inquiry report dated 07.02.2022 was submitted, in the order impugned dated 09.09.2022, inter alia observed, as under:

¶32

Þ3- mDr vuq’kklfud dk;Zokgh esa miyC/k djk;h x;h tkap vk[;k fnukad 07-02-2022 ds ijh{k.kksijkUr ;g ik;k x;k fd tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk miyC/k lk{;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa leqfpr o i;kZIr dkj.k lfgr fo’ys"k.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA rndze esa mi;qZDr vuq’kklfud dk;Zokgh esa iqutkZp djk;s tkus dk fu.kZ; ysrs gq,

¶33

4

¶34

SPLAD No. - 86 of 2025

¶35

mDr tkap gsrq dk;kZy;&Kki la[;k&A@206655@2022] fnukad 30-08-2022 }kjk Jh vfer flag ca’ky] fo’ks"k lfpo] uxj fodkl ,oa funs’kd] LoPN Hkkjr fe’ku dks tkap vf/kdjh fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA

¶36

4- dkykUrj esa Jh vfer flag ca’ky] fo’ks"k lfpo] uxj fodkl ,oa funs’kd] LoPN Hkkjr fe’ku dk LFkkukUrj.k fu;kstu foHkkx esa gks tkus ds dkj.k vc muds orZeku inuke ls vkns’k fuxZr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA

¶37

5- vr,o of.kZr fLFkfr ds n`f"Vxr m0iz0 ljdkjh lsod ¼vuq’kklu ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 1999 ds fu;e&9¼1½ ,oa dkfeZd vuqHkkx&1 ds 'kklukns’k la[;k&1@2015@13@9@98@dk&1&2015] fnukad 22-04-2015 esa fufgr izkfo/kkukuqlkj mi;qZDr vuq’kklfud dk;Zokgh esa iqutkZp gsrq Jh vfer flag ca’ky] fo’ks"k lfpo] fu;kstu foHkkx] mRrj izns’k 'kklu dks ,rn}kjk tkap vf/kdjh fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSAß

¶38

A perusal of the above indication, made in the order, clearly reflects that in a wholly cursory manner, the order remitting the case to the Inquiry Officer has been passed.

¶39

The requirements under Rule 9 of the Rules 1999 with regard to action on the inquiry report, in so far as relevant, reads as under:

¶40

“9. Action on Inquiry Report – (1) The disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the disciplinary authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7.

¶41

(2) 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.”

¶42

A perusal of Rule 9(1) of the Rules 1999 would reveal that the Disciplinary Authority may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry.

¶43

The recording of reasons as envisaged is not an empty formality whereby only in one line by indicating that the available evidence has not been properly analyzed, the matter could be remitted back. The Disciplinary Authority was required to record reasons based on the inquiry report as to where the Inquiry Officer faulted, sufficiency whereof then could be examined and, therefore, the order as passed, fell short of the requirements under the Rule. Further, the counsel, in other

¶44

5

¶45

SPLAD No. - 86 of 2025

¶46

writ petitions, in relation to co-delinquent employees, had himself conceded in this regard and when similar orders dated 09.09.2022 in the case of co-delinquent employees were set aside, the respondent was entitled to similar relief.

¶47

So far as the plea raised regarding the alleged inability of the appellant to proceed against the respondent is concerned, the operative portion of the order passed by learned Single Judge, reads as under:

¶48

“10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure No.1) is hereby set aside/quashed.

¶49

Notably, the Disciplinary Authority has again disagreed on the findings of the inquiry report dated 03.09.2024 assigning the reason of disagreement but the re-inquiry could have not been conducted pursuant to the order dated 09.09.2022, therefore, the consequential departmental inquiry may not sustain in the eyes of law.

¶50

However, it is always open for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint an Inquiry Officer to conduct the departmental inquiry against the employee and if the earlier departmental inquiry is faulty, he shall assign specific reason as to why such departmental inquiry, which has been concluded on 09.09.2022, was faulty. A show cause notice may also be given to the petitioner on the point of disagreement of the findings of Inquiry Officer in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999, but all the aforesaid exercise may be undertaken strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and keeping in a view that the petitioner has already retired on 31.03.2022.

¶51

Since the petitioner has already retired from service,therefore, the Competent Authority / Disciplinary Authority may also take decision for making payment of post retiral dues to the petitioner and he shall be paid those post retiral dues, which may not be withheld by the opposite parties. It is expected that the consequential orders would be passed with expedition.

¶52

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.

¶53

No order as to the costs.”

¶54

A perusal of above would reveal that the learned Single Judge had only quashed the order dated 09.09.2022 and has not quashed the disciplinary proceedings.

¶55

With the quashing of the order dated 09.09.2022, the disciplinary proceedings would revert back to the stage where the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report dated 07.02.2022 and from that stage onwards the Disciplinary Authority would be required to act either under Rule 9(1) or 9(2) of the Rules 1999 as has been observed by learned Single Judge

¶56

6

¶57

SPLAD No. - 86 of 2025

¶58

and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised in this regard apparently has no substance, rather the apprehension expressed is baseless.

¶59

So far as the plea raised regarding the petition having been rendered infructuous on account of the fact that the order dated 09.09.2022 had been impleaded and a fresh inquiry report had been submitted followed by issuance of notice of disagreement is concerned, learned Single Judge was correct in observing that once order dated 09.09.2022 is found falling foul of provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 1999, the consequential action, cannot be sustained.

¶60

In view thereof, we are firmly of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for any interference.

¶61

Consequently, with the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of .

¶62

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

¶63

January 22, 2026 Sandeep

¶64

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

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secretariat Administration and Another v. Om Prakash Kashyap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secretariat Administration and Another v. Om Prakash Kashyap

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. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. U.P. Pw.D. Lko. and Another vs Surendra Kumar Johari and 6 Others

Secy.Jal Kal Vibhag , Nagar Nigam Lko. and 2 Others vs Raja Ram Alias Raja Rampal and Another

Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lko. Thru. Director vs M/S S.D. Sharma and Associates , Haryana

Raj Narayan Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

State of U..P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko and Another vs Chhavi Ram

U.P. Co-Operative Federation Limited,Thru. Its Managing Director and Another vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava