Bhamar Singh And 16 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11522 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Bhamar Singh And 16 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 October, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta

Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:184010-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 838 of 2025   
 
   Bhamar Singh And 16 Others    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Anurag Yadav, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Shyam Mani Shukla   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 21
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.  

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anurag Yadav for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ?petitioners?) and Shri Shyam Mani Shukla for the respondents no. 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.

2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order and judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12.08.2025 in Writ-A No. 18790 of 2023, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the State-government has been dismissed.

3. The facts in brief relevant for disposal of the instant appeal are as follows:

4. The petitioners appeared in a selection for the post of drivers (lorry, truck/tractors) and were declared successful in the selection. They were issued appointment letters on 07.07.2008. The petitioners joined in pursuance of the appointment letters. It seems that after sometime, a complaint was made with regard to various malpractices committed during the selection process. On basis of the said complaint, a committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Development Officer was constituted and the committee in its report found that there were various irregularities committed in the selection process. It appears that on the basis of the report of the enquiry committee, disciplinary action was taken against the members of the selection committee. It further appears that some members of the selection committee have been punished whereas, against some other members the disciplinary proceedings are stated to be pending.

5. Based on the report of the committee, the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow passed an order on 06.01.2014 holding that since the entire selection process was vitiated on account of irregularities committed by the selection committee, therefore, the appointments made on basis of the recommendation of the said selection committee were also vitiated. Accordingly, he directed for cancellation of the appointments of the persons selected in the said selection. Following the said direction, the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Agra passed an order dated 09.01.2014, terminating the services of the petitioners and other selected candidates. The petitioners, being aggrieved thereby, filed Writ-A No. 4976 of 2014 before this court. In the said writ petition, initially, an interim order was passed on 27.01.2014 staying the operation of the order of the State Government dated 06.01.2014 and Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam dated 09.01.2014. However, it was left open to the respondents to pass fresh orders after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The said writ petition was dismissed in default on 13.03.2019 and, as a result whereof the interim order stood vacated. The respondents, as a result of dismissal of the writ petition and vacation of the interim order, removed the petitioners from service on 29.08.2022. On 06.02.2023, the order dated 13.03.2019 dismissing the writ petition in default was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number. Thereafter, by order and judgment dated 18.05.2023, this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 06.01.2014 and 09.01.2014 and gave liberty to State Government to pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

6. The main ground on which this Court interfered with the orders passed by the State Government and Nagar Nigam was that the aforesaid orders were passed without proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The court also found that although the respondents had relied upon the preliminary report of the committee headed by the Chief Development Officer in cancelling the entire recruitment and dispensing with the services of the petitioners but the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioners. The relevant findings recorded by the writ court in paragraph nos. 13 to 16 of its judgment are extracted below:

?13. In the instant case, the specific averments have been made by the petitioners from paragraphs 46 to 50 of the writ petition that without conducting any enquiry and giving any notice and opportunity of hearing, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. These factual averments from paragraphs 46 to 50 of the writ petition have not been categorically denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit rather they have stated that the entire selection process was marred by corruption, and once, the selection process was vitiated, the appointments made on the basis of said selection were also vitiated.

14. This Court may note that the law on the point that the services of an employee who has been appointed in accordance with the rules cannot be dispensed with except following due procedure of law, is settled by series of judgements of this Court as well as the Apex Court.

15. In the instant case, no enquiry has been conducted by the respondents before passing the termination order. The preliminary enquiry report, on the basis of which, the order dated 06.01.2014 has been passed was not supplied to the petitioner. Even the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners so as to enable them to demonstrate that the selection was fair. As the orders impugned entail civil consequence, therefore, the opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioners before passing the orders impugned.

16. In such view of the fact, the orders dated 06.01.2014 and 09.01.2014 are set aside with liberty to the respondent no.1-Secretary, Local Self Government of U.P., Lucknow to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.?

7. In pursuance of the liberty granted by writ court to the respondents to provide opportunity of hearing and passed a fresh order, the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Agra issued a notice on 08.08.2023 to the petitioners seeking their written explanation along with evidence. The notice also mentioned that in case written explanation is not received within seven days, the proceedings would be held ex parte. It seems that the petitioners did not respond to the same. On 03.10.2023, the respondents issued another notice fixing 06.10.2023 at 2.00 pm for hearing. On the said date, according to the petitioners, they duly appeared and their attendance was also recorded but no hearing took place and straightaway the State Government passed order dated 10.10.2023 rejecting their representations. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 18790 of 2023 before this Court which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge, vide order and judgment dated 12.08.2025, impugned herein.

8. Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the previous writ petition was allowed by this Court after noticing that the report of preliminary enquiry was not supplied to the petitioners before passing the order terminating their services. They were also not given proper opportunity of hearing to demonstrate that the selection was fair and no irregularity was committed. Despite the same, the respondents once again did not provide the report of preliminary enquiry although while passing the impugned order dated 10.10.2023, heavy reliance has been placed on the said enquiry report. He has also taken us through the order of State Government dated 10.10.2023 to demonstrate that the statements of members of the selection committee recorded during the preliminary enquiry conducted by the committee headed by Chief Development Officer were heavily relied upon, although copies thereof were not provided to the petitioners. He submits that even no hearing took place on the date fixed except for recording the attendance of the petitioners. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the averments made in paragraph nos. 46 to 49 of the writ petition which for convenience of reference are extracted below:

?46. That the aforesaid notice also issued directions to Nagar Ayukt to intimate the petitioners of the date fixed for hearing.

47. That the notice dated 04.10.2023 was not accompanied by any other documents. The said notice was not accompanied even by the report submitted by the three- member committee headed by Chief Development Officer on the basis of which the action had been taken against the petitioners.

48. That while intimating the petitioners with regard to fixing on 06.10.2023 is the date of hearing no documents including the report submitted by the three-member committee headed by the Chief Development Officer was made available to the petitioners nor the petitioners were made known to what fact/ objection was required to be met by the petitioners in the hearing scheduled for 06.10.2023.

49. That in view of the matter the petitioners appeared before the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas on 06.10.2023. At the time of such appearance of the petitioners only the attendance of the petitioners stood recorded on the said date. No hearing of any kind took place. No query of any kind was placed to the petitioners nor the petitioners were required to give reply to any particular query/ objection.?

9. He has also invited our attention towards paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.1 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18790 of 2023, in which reply has been given to the aforesaid paragraphs, which are as follows:

?16. That the content of the Para No. 43, 44, 45 and 46 of the Writ Petition are matter of records. It is submitted that a letter dated 28.07.2023 by Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Agra to Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow for guidance was given in which, in pursuance of order dated 18.05.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court, then a notice dated 08.08.2023 by Additional Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Agra was given to petitioner to submit their reply along with evidence then the Joint Secretary vide its order dated 03.10.2023 has given notice to the petitioner to present on 06.10.2023 at 2:00 p.m. for hearing of their matter and later on 04.10.2023 Joint Secretary has also given letter to Nagary Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Agra that the hearing of the matter will go on 06.10.2023 at 10:30 a.m. in spite of 2:00p.m. The copy letter dated 03.10.2023 and hearing attended copy 06.10.2023 are collectively being filed herewith as Annexure no. 3 to this affidavit and the copy of letter dated 04.10.2023 is already annexed as Annexure no. 29 of the present writ petition.

17. That the content of the Para No. 47, 48, 49, and 50 of the Writ Petition are not admitted as stated hence denied in reply thereto it is submitted that the notice and full opportunity of hearing have been provided to the petitioner thereafter the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 which is clearly envisaged on the order itself. (The order dated 10.10.2023 is already annexed annexure no 30 in the present writ Petition).?

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners were duly served with notice dated 08.08.2023 seeking their written reply but no reply was given by the petitioners. It is also submitted that by notice dated 03.10.2023, they were duly intimated of the fact that that 06.10.2023 is fixed for hearing and on the said date, petitioners were duly heard but they could not point out how the report of preliminary enquiry was incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order came to be passed.

11. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

12. Admittedly, the entire action which has been taken against the petitioners is based on the report of preliminary enquiry submitted by the committee headed by Chief Development Officer. Even in the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the State Government, the finding recorded is that the petitioners could not point out how the deficiencies pointed out by the enquiry committee were not in existence so as to demonstrate that their appointments were valid and lawful. However, indisputably, the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioners and straightaway the respondents issued notice to the petitioners on 08.08.2023 seeking their written reply. Unless the petitioners were supplied with the adverse material, as was in existence against them, undoubtedly, the petitioners were seriously handicapped in submitting any reply. Here we may note that the previous writ petition of the petitioners was allowed primarily on the ground that the enquiry report, which form the basis for terminating their services, had not been supplied. In such circumstances, the least which was expected from the respondents was to supply the copy of the enquiry report and other adverse material to the petitioners while seeking their written reply. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by the respondents was again inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.

13. It has been specifically pleaded by the petitioners that on 06.10.2023, the date fixed for hearing, no hearing took place except the respondents taking signatures of the petitioners on the attendance sheet. It is also specifically asserted in paragraph no. 48 of the writ petition that even on 06.10.2023, the petitioners were not provided with the report of three-members committee, which formed the basis for drawing adverse inferences against the petitioners. In the counter affidavit, there is no specific denial.

14. The petitioners who were selected in pursuance of the selection held by the respondents were entitled to all adverse material being supplied to them and also to proper opportunity of hearing before their services were terminated. The petitioners were also not associated with the enquiry held by the three-members committee, still the report of the said committee has been made basis for terminating their services and that too without supplying a copy of the same to the petitioners.

15. Thus, the entire procedure adopted by the respondents is found to be in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, we are unable to sustain the order of the State Government dated 10.10.2023.

16. Before the learned Single Judge, although specific arguments were raised on the said aspects but instead of considering the same, he has gone on the merits of the case and has observed that the petitioners have failed to give any explanation to the discrepancies pointed out by the enquiry committee headed by the Chief Development Officer. It has also been observed that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and during the hearing they could not show any document or put up any defence to sustain their appointment and the selection process.

17. Once it is established that the decision making process itself was faulty and the petitioners were not provided with the adverse material on basis of which the respondents were proceeding against the petitioners, the fact that a date for hearing was fixed and the petitioners appeared on the said date, would not cure the initial defect which goes to the root of the proceeding. Consequentially, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

18. As a result of our discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of learned Single Judge dated 12.08.2025 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the State Government is hereby quashed.

19. The respondents are directed to provide copy of the report of preliminary enquiry conducted by the committee headed by the Chief Development Officer and all other adverse material to the petitioners and, after seeking their reply, fix a date for hearing and then pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

October 14, 2025

Sumit K.