Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash vs Union Of India And 5 Others on 17 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186816-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 2337 of 2019
Om Prakash
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and 5 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Amardeo Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.S.G.I., Prem Shanker Prasad
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('the Tribunal') whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority imposing punishment of removal from service has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner was issued charge-sheet with two charges pertaining to payment of bogus money orders to the tune of Rs. 8,68,500/- and for remaining absent without leave. After the inquiry, the petitioner was held guilty of both the charges and punishment order of removal from service was imposed. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed appeal, which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed Original Application raising several grounds in support of the contentions raised.
3. The Tribunal by the order impugned, noticed the facts of the case and expressed surprise regarding the petitioner not seeking any relief regarding the inquiry report. The challenge laid by the petitioner pointing out the deficiencies in the inquiry report were all met by the Tribunal with omnibus observations that inquiry report has not been challenged/relief regarding inquiry report has not been claimed in the petition and after referring to the judgments pertaining to the parameters on which the validity of disciplinary proceedings can be examined, has dismissed the Original Application.
4. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the Original Application without examining the challenges laid by the petitioner to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
5. Submissions have been made that the petitioner had questioned the validity of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and for the said purpose, had raised specific grounds in the Original Application questioning the validity of the inquiry report/findings recorded therein, however, only because in the relief clause prayer for setting aside the inquiry report was not made, the Tribunal has refused to examine the challenge laid, which determination is ex facie incorrect, inasmuch as the challenge laid to the order of the Disciplinary Authority by itself means challenge to the inquiry report and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the petitioner has been found guilty of bogus payments of money orders and unauthorized absence and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority being speaking does not call for any interference.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal reveals that one common thread is found across the entire order, wherein after noticing every challenge, as raised by the petitioner, observations have been made that the inquiry report has not been challenged.
9. We are of the firm opinion that the determination made by the Tribunal only on account of the fact that in the relief clause, the petitioner had not sought quashing of the inquiry report, cannot be sustained. The very fact that the relief was claimed qua the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the said relief by itself encompasses the challenge to the inquiry report as the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority essentially is based on the inquiry report and the response given by the petitioner to the findings recorded in the inquiry report and, therefore, the dismissal of the Original Application, without adverting to the challenge laid by the petitioner on the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, cannot be sustained.
10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside.
11. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to hear the parties afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in view of the observations made hereinbefore.
12. Looking to the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2013, it is expected of the Tribunal to decide the matter with utmost expedition.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
October 17, 2025
nd/AKShukla
