Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar Gautam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., ... on 8 October, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:61985
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 8475 of 2025
Rakesh Kumar Gautam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Lko And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Neha Mishra, Gaurav Mehrotra, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
(1) Heard Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr.Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
(2) The petition has been filed challenging order dated 22.05.2025 whereby petitioner has been held guilty and visited with punishment of reversion to the initial post. Further, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to re-instate him on the post on which he was working prior to passing of the impugned punishment order with all consequential benefits including arrears of difference in salary etc.
(3) It is submitted that earlier petitioner while working on the post of Executive Engineer was issued a charge sheet dated 19.07.2011 containing 8 charges levelled against him. It is submitted that subsequently petitioner sought some time to file a reply to the charge sheet but was unable to do so within the stipulated period and as a result of which the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte and the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 27.07.2013, but the Disciplinary Authority vide letter 21.12.2015 directed Enquiry Officer to re-conduct the enquiry in accordance with provisions of Government Order dated 22.04.2015 by affording opportunity of cross-examination with oral evidence to the petitioner. It is submitted that thereafter the enquiry report dated 15.04.2023 was submitted resulting in passing of the impugned order.
(4) It is submitted that a perusal of enquiry proceedings and the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer clearly indicates the aspect that the second enquiry report as well has been submitted on ex parte proceedings and without following due procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 inasmuch as no oral evidence whatsoever was led nor was any opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross-examine any witness. It is submitted that the enquiry report itself indicates that charges have been found established against petitioner only on the basis that he had failed to submit a reply to the charge sheet.
(5) Learned counsel also submits that even a perusal of charge sheet will indicate that there is no serious allegation levelled against the petitioner which would require imposition of major penalty as has been done in the present case. She has placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the cases of Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another [2024 SCC Online SC 3325], State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772] and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others [(2009) 2 SCC 570].
(6) Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that earlier enquiry report dated 27.07.2013 was submitted in the absence of any reply to the charge sheet but the Disciplinary Authority himself examined the aspect and finding the enquiry report to be ex parte directed the Enquiry Officer to re-conduct the enquiry vide order dated 21.12.2015 by affording an opportunity to cross-examine with oral evidence in the presence of delinquent officer. It is therefore submitted that lacuna in enquiry proceedings was addressed by the Disciplinary Authority himself without any such ground being taken by petitioner.
(7) It is also submitted that ample opportunity was provided to petitioner to submit his reply to the charge sheet which he failed to do so even after being afforded opportunity twice. It is therefore submitted that it is in the absence of reply submitted by petitioner that the Enquiry Officer was compelled to complete proceedings in accordance with law which has been done by submission of the second inquiry report leading to passing of the impugned order.
(8) Learned State Counsel also submitted that judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable in the present case particularly when ample opportunity of participation was provided to petitioner and was not availed of by him.
(9) Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that the charge sheet was initially served upon petitioner containing 8 charges. The charges particularly advert to not adhering to the procedure prescribed in issuance of tenders and lack of competition in invitation to offer the tenders.
(10) It is also evident that petitioner failed to submit his reply to the charge sheet leading to filing of first inquiry report dated 27.07.2013 but re-enquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 21.12.2015 requiring the Enquiry Officer to re-conduct the inquiry with oral evidence and affording opportunity to cross-examine to the petitioner. It also appears that despite aforesaid directions regarding re-enquiry, petitioner failed to submit his reply to the charge sheet leading to filing of second enquiry report in the year 2023.
(11) However, upon perusal of the enquiry report dated 22.07.2023, it is evident that the enquiry officer has adverted to charges 1 to 7 conjointly while recording his finding pertaining to charge 8 separately. It is also evident from perusal of the enquiry report that charges have been found to be established only on the basis of report submitted by the presenting officer of the department. The Enquiry Officer has thereafter straightaway recorded conclusions with regard to charges levelled against petitioner without even adverting to any witness or corroborating evidence pertaining to charges levelled against petitioner.
(12) It is also evident on record that the Enquiry Officer has not found any pecuniary loss incurred by the State Government with regard to alleged misconduct of petitioner.
(13) It is admitted between the parties that provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 are applicable upon petitioner and therefore it is Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 which would govern the procedure required to be followed against petitioner. The aforesaid Rule is as follows:-
"7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - Before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner :
(i) The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges.
(ii)The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the disciplinary authority :Provided that where the appointing authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary; as the case may be, of the concerned department.
(iii)The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet.
(iv)The charged Government servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex parte.
(v)The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation:
Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer.
(vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission.
(vii) Where the charged Government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence :
Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness.
(viii)The Inquiry Officer may summon any witness to give evidence or require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976.
(ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges.
(x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant.
(xi) The disciplinary authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by an order appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge.
(xii) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner of the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits :
Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases :
(i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or
(iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules."
(14) Upon applicability of the aforesaid Rule in present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer to have directed parties to lead their evidence and to corroborate the evidence brought on record by the Presenting Officer either by oral evidence or by any any documentary evidence.
(15) From a perusal of the aforesaid enquiry report, it is evident that the report submitted by the Presenting Officer of the department has been taken at its face value without requiring the department to corroborate the same. It is also evident that no oral enquiry took place. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) dealt with the issue that enquiry proceedings are in the nature of quasi judicial proceedings and even if delinquent officer fails to participate in enquiry proceedings, it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record his findings on the basis of evidence which is produced before him and is appropriately corroborated either by oral evidence or otherwise. The relevant portion in Roop Singh Negi (supra) is as follows:
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled 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."
(16) Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgment in the present case, it is thus evident that although petitioner failed to submit his report to the charge sheet but it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to have conducted the enquiry in accordance with Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules by requiring oral evidence to corroborate the documents which were produced before the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry proceedings and such a procedure having not been followed vitiates the enquiry proceedings as well as subsequent punishment order, particularly in view of the fact that petitioner in his reply to the show cause issued under Rule 9(4) of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999 has taken such a specific plea which has not been addressed by the Disciplinary Authority.
(17) Resultantly, the impugned punishment order dated 22.05.2025 is hereby quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to conduct enquiry afresh, if so required, from the stage of filing of a reply by petitioner for the said charges. The petitioner shall be granted a period of fifteen days to file his reply to the charges indicated in the charge sheet. The enquiry proceedings, if held, shall be concluded expeditiously within a period of two months from the last date for filing his response to the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer shall strictly adhere to the provisions of Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999 and pronouncement of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court stated here-in-above for conduct of the enquiry proceedings. The aspect of difference in salary of petitioner and posting orders would be dependent upon the final orders which are to be passed in the enquiry proceedings.
(18) Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
(Manish Mathur,J.)
October 8, 2025
lakshman
