Alok Sharma vs U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Thru. Managing Dir. Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3138 of 2026

¶3

Alok Sharma

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus
U.P. State Food And Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Thru. Managing Dir. Lko. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Tiwari, Anand Shukla	Sharma, Vaibhav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kaushlendra Tewari

¶6

Court No. - 32

¶7

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari for respondent No. 1, 2 and 3.

¶9

This Court entertained the petition on 24.03.2026, thereafter, an order came to be passed on 02.04.2026 and 24.04.2026.

¶10

Today, when the matter has been taken up, Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari appearing for the respondents has made a statement at the bar that he is well equipped with instructions and he is in a position to argue the matter and he does not propose to file any affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Class-III employee on substantive basis as Typist on 15.12.1998 under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. However, while the petitioner was posted as Typist, he was placed under suspension by virtue of the order dated 04.05.2024 and thereafter a charge-sheet dated 24.05.2024 came to be served upon the petitioner containing as many as three charges. The petitioner denied the charges and came up with a stand that he is innocent and he has not committed any misconduct so as to empower the respondents to either place the petitioner under suspension or to conduct departmental inquiry. The reply of the petitioner was dated 25.07.2024. Post appointment of the Inquiry Officer, a notice came to be issued on 30.01.2025 fixing 06.02.2025 as the date for personal hearing. The petitioner claims to have appeared before the Inquiry Officer and thereafter, in an ex-parte manner, the inquiry report came to be submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 19.06.2025. According to the petitioner, without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner on 31.07.2025, the Managing Director of the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities

¶12

WRIA No. 3138 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

Limited required the petitioner for personal hearing and thereafter proceeded to pass the order dated 11.11.2025 dismissing the petitioner from service.

¶15

Questioning the said order, the present petition has been preferred.

¶16

This Court entertained the petition on 24.03.2026 wherein the following order was passed.-

¶17

"1. Heard.

¶18

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶19

"(i) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Impugned Dismissal Order dated 11th November 2025 passed by Opposite Party No. 2. (ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to reinstate the Petitioner in service on his substantive post of Typist (Tankak) with full back wages, continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits."

¶20

3. Sri Kaushlendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents raises preliminary objection and submits that appeal u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is provided under the relevant rules against the order of dismissal, hence, petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy.

¶21

4. In regard to the aforesaid objection, relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and on the judgement of this Court in the case of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lko. Vs. Dr. Charu Mahajan and others reported in Special Appeal No. 228 of 2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mandatory rules have been violated in passing the impugned order, hence, there is no bar.

¶22

5. Having considering the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the ground of filing the appeal is that the mandatory provisions of rules have not been followed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely on the basis of availability of statutory remedy, jurisdiction of this Court cannot be curtailed. Accordingly, objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is hereby rejected.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was submitted by the competent authority and then reply was given by the petitioner denying the charges, but without conducting any inquiry by fixing the date, place and time for proving the case of department and giving the reply of the petitioner, the impugned order was passed.

¶24

7. List this case on 02.04.2026.

¶25

8. On the next date, any responsible officer shall appear in person before this Court alongwith complete record."

¶26

7. Thereafter, on 02.04.2026, the following order was passed.-

¶27

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is informed that in para 3 of the order dated 24.3.206, in place of Section 42 of U.P. Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules were wrongly mentioned as u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

3. Accordingly, the words, "u/s 482 Cr.P.C." shall be read as "Section 42 of U.P. Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules" On 24.3.2026, following order was passed :-

¶29

WRIA No. 3138 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

1. Heard.

¶32

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶33

"(i) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Impugned Dismissal Order dated 11th November 2025 passed by Opposite Party No. 2. (ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to reinstate the Petitioner in service on his substantive post of Typist (Tankak) with full back wages, continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits."

¶34

3. Sri Kaushlendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents raises preliminary objection and submits that appeal u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is provided under the relevant rules against the order of dismissal, hence, petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy.

¶35

4. In regard to the aforesaid objection, relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and on the judgement of this Court in the case of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lko. Vs. Dr. Charu Mahajan and others reported in Special Appeal No. 228 of 2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mandatory rules have been violated in passing the impugned order, hence, there is no bar.

¶36

5. Having considering the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the ground of filing the appeal is that the mandatory provisions of rules have not been followed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely on the basis of availability of statutory remedy, jurisdiction of this Court cannot be curtailed. Accordingly, objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is hereby rejected.

¶37

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was submitted by the competent authority and then reply was given by the petitioner denying the charges, but without conducting any inquiry by fixing the date, place and time for proving the case of department and giving the reply of the petitioner, the impugned order was passed.

¶38

7. List this case on 02.04.2026.

¶39

8. On the next date, any responsible officer shall appear in person before this Court alongwith complete record.

¶40

4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, Ashok Kumar, Assistant Grade-I of U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. is present alongwith relevant record.

¶41

5. The record reveals that after giving reply dated 25.7.2024 to the charge sheet dated 24.5.2024 a letter was issued after about eight months by the inquiry officer on 30.1.2025 calling the petitioner for personal hearing, fixing 6.2.2025 at 11:30 A.M. and petitioner appeared and denied the guilt in the reply dated 25.7.2024 but in place of producing the witness for proving a case of the department, certain questions were asked by the inquiry officer and inquiry report was submitted.

¶42

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the identical circumstances, dismissal order was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.3014 (S/S) of 2014 'Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.' on the ground that corporation was failed to prove its case by producing its witnesses as per Rule 35 of U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992

¶43

The judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed by this Court reads as under :-

¶44

1: Heard Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shree Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Anil Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶45

2: By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal dated 10.4.2014 passed by the respondent No.3, contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has further been prayed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary from the date of dismissal

¶46

WRIA No. 3138 of 2026

¶47

4

¶48

i.e. 10.4.2014.

¶49

3: Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was granted appointment on ClassIII post (Godown In-charge) in U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.9.2013 and was attached to the District Office at Lucknow.

¶50

4: A charge-sheet dated 2.11.2013 was served upon the petitioner on 6.11.2013. The petitioner submitted an application on 7.11.2013 and 9.11.2013 requesting therein to supply the documents referred in the charge-sheet and reminder letter was also sent on 13.11.2013. The Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 14.11.2013 furnished 2 documents, but refused to supply the copy of the letter issued by the District Magistrate.

¶51

5: The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 21.11.2013, whereby the petitioner denied all the charges and gave names of 9 persons, who were desired to be cross-examined by the petitioner. The petitioner also requested for documents which have been prepared behind the back of the petitioner with the request to crossexamine the Officers who have prepared the documents.

¶52

6: The request of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses was disallowed vide letter dated 17.12.2013 on the ground that point of cross-examination has not been mentioned and thereafter, without fixing date, time and place, the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted it to the disciplinary authority.

¶53

7: The disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice along with the enquiry report dated 30.1.2014.

¶54

8: The petitioner submitted reply of the show-cause notice on 21.2.2014, stating therein that the whole enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is contrary to the provisions contained under U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 (in short, "Rules of 1992"), prescribing procedure to conduct the enquiry. The petitioner was required to appear in person before the Managing Director on 20.3.2014, where he required to submit his written statement, but the disciplinary authority without permitting the petitioner to file written statement, passed the impugned order dated 10.4.2014, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

¶55

9: Assailing the impugned order, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without providing the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet and without permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, without fixing date, time and place for personal hearing, enquiry was conducted and impugned order was passed, which vitiates in law. It is the Enquiry Officer who had to prove charges levelled against the petitioner by adducing evidence, giving opportunity to the petitioner and permit cross-examination of the witness to nullify the documentary evidence by adducing such evidence as may be necessary, but the said opportunity has not been provided to the petitioner, thus, his submission is that entire proceeding vitiates in law.

¶56

10: Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the law is settled that enquiry is not to be a mere formality and deviation from the established procedure which caused serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, in utter disregard of the provisions contained under the Rules of 1992, has proceed to conclude the enquiry proceeding against the petitioner. He further submitted that it is settled proposition of law that regular enquiry should be concluded by providing opportunity to the delinquent employee to submit his reply and thereafter, prosecution has to lead oral evidence to substantiate with due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. After conclusion of the statement of the prosecution witnesses, liberty should be given to the delinquent employee to lead evidence in defence. Burden to prove the charges in accordance with law rest on the shoulder of the prosecution. Delinquent employee may avail the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses even if the delinquent employee does not ask for. It shall be incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record the statements of the witnesses to substantiate the

¶57

WRIA No. 3138 of 2026

¶58

5

¶59

charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, this opportunity has not been provided to the petitioner, thus, the order is not sustainable in law.

¶60

11: His next submission is that it is expected from the opposite parties, being the instrumentality of the State to act in fair and proper manner for the welfare of its employees. In the present case, the petitioner has been denied the Right to Protection, provided under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in utter disregard of the provisions enshrined under the Rules of 1992, the disciplinary proceeding has been concluded against the petitioner, thus, the impugned order being illegal and arbitrary, requires interference of this Court.

¶61

12: On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents tried to substantiate the conclusion of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and ultimately admitted that no proper enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner has neither been provided personal hearing, nor has been provided opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses.

¶62

13: After having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record and the submission advanced on behalf of the respective parties.

¶63

14: To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, the Rule 35 of U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 is relevant, which is being quoted below:

¶64

15: Rule 35 of the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 prescribes full fledged procedure to conduct enquiry against an employee of the department. On perusal of the material on record, it is well established that the Enquiry Officer while holding the enquiry against the petitioner has violated the provisions and has not provided ample opportunity as has been prescribed under the aforesaid rules, therefore, the rule of natural justice in conducting the enquiry has been violated.

¶65

16: The issue in regard to violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as in regard to fixing of date, time and place to provide opportunity of hearing as well as permission to accord cross-examination of the witnesses came for consideration before this Court in the following cases: (i) This Court in Subhas Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000(1) UPLBEC 541, said:-

¶66

"In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion the impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice."

¶67

(ii) In the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported (2010) 2 SCC 772 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:-

¶68

"An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether

¶69

WRIA No. 3138 of 2026

¶70

6

¶71

the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service."

¶72

(iii) Similar view was taken in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 as under:-

¶73

"Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence."

¶74

(iii) Recently the entire law on the subject has been reviewed and reiterated in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has culled out certain principles as under: "i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.

¶75

ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer.

¶76

(iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to crossexamine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.

¶77

(iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any."

¶78

17: On perusal of record, it is reflected that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, who submitted an application requesting therein to supply the documents referred in the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer furnished 2 documents, but refused to supply the copy of the letter issued by the District Magistrate.

¶79

18: The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the Enquiry Officer has not provided opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, no date, time and place was fixed for oral hearing nor was provided the demanded documents to submit his appropriate reply to the Enquiry Officer.

¶80

19: Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents have also admitted the fact that no proper enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. He was not provided personal hearing nor was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses relied upon.

¶81

20: In view of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents and the material on record, it is well established that the rules of natural justice have

¶82

WRIA No. 3138 of 2026

¶83

7

¶84

been seriously violated in the case of the petitioner, therefore, the order of dismissal being based on ex-parte enquiry report and in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

¶85

21: On overall consideration of provisions contained under U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 and on perusal of the record, this Court records that the impugned order is in violation of rules of natural justice as well as in violation of the provisions contained in U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶86

22: Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.4.2014 is hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

¶87

23: The opposite parties are at liberty to initiate fresh enquiry proceeding, if permissible, and conclude the same in accordance with the provisions of U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 and pass appropriate, reasoned speaking order on conclusion of proceedings within a period of 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶88

7. List this case on 29.4.2026.

¶89

8. By the next date of listing, respondent no.2 is directed to file para-wise reply to the pleading of the petition. 9. Relevant record placed before this Court is returned to the Officer who is present today.

¶90

10. In case, by the next date of listing, counter affidavit is not filed by the respondent no.2, he shall appear before this Court to assist the Court."

¶91

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that the impugned order cannot be sustained even for a single moment for more than one reason firstly firstly, there has been flagrant violation of principles of natural justice particularly when though a charge-sheet came to be served upon the petitioner, to which the petitioner tendered his reply denying the charges and claiming innocence, however, it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to have fixed the date, time and venue for conducting inquiry but according to the petitioner, on 31.01.2025, a date was fixed for 06.02.2025 for personal hearing. However, without there being any opportunity being accorded to the petitioner/delinquent employee for cross-examination or examination-inchief, the impugned order came to be passed. Submission is that even otherwise, the copy of the inquiry report was also not served upon the petitioner accompanied with the show cause notice, which itself is nothing but a classic case of flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, as nonsupply of inquiry report itself tantamounts to violation of principles of natural justice, and the petitioner was completely in dark about the contents of the inquiry report, and the opportunity to tender reply to the show cause notice/ inquiry report also stood extinguished. Further submission is that though the disciplinary authority had required the petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 31.07.2025 but the said exercise will not validate the illegalities committed during the inquiry proceedings. Reliance has been placed upon a series of judgments on the said subject, including the judgment of this Court in /Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director (2000) 1 UPLBEC in that regard and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. versus Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772. Further submission is that had the petitioner been put to notice while being accorded opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings, while

¶92

WRIA No. 3138 of 2026

¶93

8

¶94

being allowed to further participate in the oral inquiry, then he would have amply demonstrated that it was not a case of misconduct and the writ petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service.

¶95

Countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the petitioner had committed misconduct and that is why he was placed under suspension and thereafter, he was issued a charge-sheet, and the petitioner tendered his reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges and post appointment of the Inquiry Officer, a date was fixed on 31.01.2025 for personal hearing on 06.02.2025, however, there is nothing on record to show that the writ petitioner demanded oral inquiry in that regard. He further submits that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused, particularly when the personal hearing was accorded by the disciplinary authority.

¶96

I have heard the submissions made across the bar and perused the record.

¶97

Apparently, the petitioner happens to be a Typist in the respondent organization and his services stands governed under the provisions contained under the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Limited (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1902. As per the Rules in question, a complete procedure has been contemplated in the manner in which disciplinary inquiry is to be conducted.

¶98

Plainly and simply, the disciplinary authority has power to suspend the delinquent employee in case inquiry is pending or contemplated and in order to conduct an inquiry, charge sheet is to be served, reply is to be asked for whether the delinquent denies the charges or admits the same. In case of denial, a full-fledged inquiry is to be conducted which partakes the character of appointment of an inquiry officer as the case may be Presenting Officer and opportunity is to the delinquent to appoint a defence assistant, and thereafter, after holding oral inquiry by fixing time, venue and date and giving opportunity for cross-examination and examination-in-chief, an inquiry report is to be submitted before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority is enjoined to issue a show cause notice accompanied with the inquiry report, giving reasonable time to submit reply, and thereafter, post consideration of the same, an order is to be passed. Here in the present case, as apparent from the impugned order, it reveals that though the Inquiry Officer, by virtue of the notice dated 30.01.2025 fixed a date for 06.02.2025 for personal hearing, however, here is no recital in the impugned order or even otherwise from the record that there happen to be fixation of time, date and venue when the oral inquiry was to be done.

¶99

As a matter of fact, it is a settled principle of law, and the said issue is no more res integra, that even if the delinquent does not ask for oral inquiry then to in order to bring home the charges, the disciplinary authority/Inquiry

¶100

WRIA No. 3138 of 2026

¶101

9

¶102

Officer is to conduct oral inquiry in that regard. Apart from the same, there is nothing on record, even from the impugned order that the copy of the inquiry report was served upon the writ petitioner along with the show cause notice, thus, in the circumstances, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. Furthermore, merely because the disciplinary authority had asked the petitioner to appear on a particular date, that is, 31,07.2025 for personal hearing, will not validate the irregularities and the illegalities which go to the root of the matter at the level of conduction of the inquiry. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶103

Now, a question arises as to what course is to be adopted once the punishment order goes away. Since the punishment order is to be declared illegal on technical grounds being in violation of principles of natural justice, and bearing in mind the nature of the allegations, this Court does not find it appropriate to injunct the disciplinary authority from conducting a fresh inquiry from the stage of submission of reply to the charge-sheet.

¶104

Accordingly, the petition is being decided in the following terms.-

¶105

(a) The order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Limited, Lucknow is set aside;

¶106

(b) the setting aside the order would not preclude the disciplinary authority to get the inquiry conducted from the stage of submission of reply to the charge sheet.

¶107

In case the disciplinary authority takes a decision to conduct the inquiry, then the inquiry shall be proceeded with from the stage of submission of reply to the charge-sheet within a period of 15 days from today. The Inquiry Officer shall fix a date, time and venue for holding of inquiry, the petitioner/delinquent employee shall participate in the same and the inquiry shall be concluded within a period of three months.

¶108

The reinstatement and grant of consequential benefits shall be dependent upon the fresh orders to be passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner shall be entitled to subsistence allowance as revised from time to time subject to fulfilment of the statutory compliance in that regard

¶109

In case, the inquiry proceedings are not concluded within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, then the petitioner shall have liberty to again approach the Court for reinstatement.

¶110

Learned counsel for the petitioner, as per instructions from his client, has made a statement at the bar that the petitioner shall not take unnecessary

¶111

WRIA No. 3138 of 2026

¶112

10

¶113

adjournments and he shall participate in the inquiry and also extend full cooperation in that regard.

¶114