Braj Bhushan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Atif, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶12

The order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Hapur by which petitioner was dismissed from service is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶13

Apart from various other arguements on merits, an objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that against the aforesaid order statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file an appeal and thereafter a revision before the State Government as per provisions contained in U.P. Government Service (Discipline & Appeals), Rules 1999.

¶14

In response to the same, it is argued by learned Senior Counsel that order impugned is vitiated by gross violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, no oral enquiry was conducted, no witnesses were examined and no opportunity of cross-examination was provided, thereby rendering the entire disciplinary proceedings null and void. The disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated on account of non compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 7(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as no relied upon documents, witness lists, or statements were ever supplied to the petitioner despite repeated requests, thereby depriving him of a fair

¶15

WRIA No. 7117 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

opportunity to defend himself. Both the alleged enquiry reports dated 16.01.2025 and 03.03.2025 are ex facie illegal having been prepared ex parte without fixing any date, time or place of inquiry without recording any oral or documentary evidence and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, thus rendering the same void ab initio and incapable of being relied upon. The inquiry reports dated 16.01.2025 and 03.03.2025 were never served upon the petitioner prior to issuance of the final show cause notice dated 25.02.2026 and passing of the impugned dismissal order dated 18.04.2026, thereby violating the mandatory requirement of furnishing the inquiry report and seeking representation thereon, as contemplated under the statutory rules and settled law.

¶18

In the facts and circumstances as stated above and from perusal of the arguements as advanced by the learned Senior Counsel, it is clear that the order of dismissal dated 18.04.2026 was passed in violation of provisions contained under the mandatory provisions of Rule 7(5) Rules, 1999 hence same is liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed. Respondent no.2 is directed to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under Rule 7(5) of Rules, 1999 most expeditiously and preferably within three months from today.

¶20

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate copy of this order to the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Hapur within a week.

¶21

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶22

May 12, 2026 Pramod Tripathi

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRAKASH PADIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Braj Bhushan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Braj Bhushan v. State of Uttar Pradesh 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

Munna Lal and 18 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajat Kumar Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others