Allahabad High Court
Alka Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ ... on 14 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63762
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 12134 of 2025
Alka Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy./ Secy., Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Vikram Jeet Singh Rathore, Prashant Kumar Chaurasia, Purshottam Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Abhinav Singh, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6, Mr. Deves Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
The instant petition has been filed while laying challenge to the order dated 26.07.2025 which has been passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao in compliance of the order passed in Writ A No. 7017 of 2025 dated July 8, 2025.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an inquiry was contemplated against the petitioner and thereafter, without serving a copy of the inquiry report upon the petitioner, the inquiry proceedings was concluded with minor punishment awarded. He submitted that being aggrieved, the petitioner while challenging the said order of minor punishment dated 06.06.2025, filed a writ bearing Writ A No. 7017 of 2025, wherein, the following order dated 08.07.2025 was passed:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Shri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 B.S.A. prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file a short counter affidavit indicating the medical leave which the petitioner was entitled to and which had been sanctioned which has resulted in alleged excess payment to the petitioner which is sought to be recovered vide order dated 05.06.2024, a copy of which has annexure 2 to the petition.
As regards the order dated 06.06.2025, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been punished with minor penalty Shri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 fairly states that prior to passing of the said order no inquiry report had been served upon the petitioner although major penalty proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner but it was found feasible to impose only a minor penalty but yet as major penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, inquiry report should have been given to the petitioner.
Considering that no inquiry report had been given to the petitioner, accordingly there cannot be any occasion for continuance of the order dated 06.06.2025 consequently the order dated 06.06.2025 is kept in abeyance. The consequences of the order dated 06.06.2025 being kept in abeyance would follow. Liberty is granted to the respondent no. 3 to pass fresh order in accordance with law and relevant rules.
List this case in the week commencing 28.07.2025 as fresh."
Referring to the aforesaid, he submits that the coordinate Bench of this Court, while noticing that the order dated 06.06.2025 whereby the minor penalty was imposed, was unsustainable, therefore, it was kept in abeyance and granted liberty to the respondent no. 3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Unnao, to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law and relevant rules, however, instead of proceeding in accordance with the law, the District Basic Education Officer has served a copy of the Inquiry Report but has not proceeded as per the Rules 7, 8 and 9 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1999(herein after referred to as 'Rules 1999'). Rules 7, 8 and 9 are reproduced hereinunder:-
"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.
8. Submission of Inquiry Report. -
When the inquiry is complete, the Inquiry Officer shall submit its inquiry report to the disciplinary authority alongwith all the records of the inquiry. The inquiry report shall contain a sufficient record of brief facts, the evidence and statement of the findings on each charge and the reasons thereof. The Inquiry Officer shall not make any recommendation about the penalty.
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.
(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.
(3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated by the disciplinary authority of the charges and inform him accordingly;
(4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry 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. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant."
Further submission is that the order impugned dated 26.07.2025 is not only unlawful and erroneous, therefore, submission is that the order dated 26.07.2025 is liable to be quashed.
Mr. Abhinav Singh, learned counsel appearing for the District Basic Education Officer has failed to defend the impugned order, as he could not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Basic Education Officer has not proceeded in accordance with Rules 7, 8, and 9 of the Rules 1999, even after the judgment and order was passed on 08.07.2025 in Writ A number 7017 of 2525.
For the foregoing reasons and submissions, it emerges that the earlier the present petitioner had challenged the order of minor punishment awarded vide order dated 06.06.2025, in Writ A No. 7017 of 2525, which was kept in abeyance and the District Basic Education Officer was granted liberty to pass a fresh order.
When this court examines the order passed by the District Education Officer, impugned herein, it is apparent that no fresh order was passed, rather it has been said in the order that there is no need to make any change in the order dated 06.06.2025 and the petitioner's representation was rejected, which is not only unlawful but is also contemptuous to the direction made vide the judgment and order dated 08.07.2025.
In this view of the matter, the order dated 26.07.2025 is unsustainable, resultantly, the same is hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao, to pass a fresh order, after providing a copy of the Inquiry Report to the petitioner and strictly adhering to Rules 7, 8, and 9 of the 'Rules 1999'. The whole proceedings shall be concluded within a period of two months while associating all the stakeholders.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is allowed at the admission stage, with the consent of both the parties.
Needless to say that the due salary of the petitioner shall be paid forthwith. The petitioner, if not joined already on the post, she shall join immediately,
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
October 14, 2025
Mayank
