State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. ... vs Amar Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 11741 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. ... vs Amar Singh on 27 October, 2025

Author: Sangeeta Chandra

Bench: Sangeeta Chandra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:66245-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 87 of 2025           
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secretariat Administration Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Amar Singh    
 
  .....Respondent(s)        
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Akber Ahmad, Gaurav Mehrotra   
 
      
 
 Court No. - 2
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.  

HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

(C.M. APPLICATION NO. IA 01/2025-Application for Condonation of Delay in filing the Special Appeal).

1. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Tushar Verma for the appellant-State and Shri Akber Ahmad and Shri Gaurav Mehrotra for the Respondent.

2. This Appeal has been filed with a delay of 18 days.

3. The counsel for the Respondent has filed objections to the application for Condonation of Delay.

4. We have gone through the objections wherein it has been stated that the limitation period for filing the instant Appeal had lapsed on 01.02.2025. The appeal should have been filed within 30 days of the passing of the order. The appellants have tried to explain delay in filing the Appeal in a vague manner and the reason stated therein is baseless.

5. The delay has not been explained in a satisfactory manner.

6. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for Condonation of Delay and we find that the Appellants-State has mentioned therein that after receiving information regarding impugned Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2025 through letters sent by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel on 24.01.2025, legal opinion was sought. On 07.02.2025 legal opinion was given. The Department of Law & Justice vide an order dated 10.02.2025 thereafter granted permission for filing Special Appeal. On 11.02.2025 the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel was approached for taking appropriate action regarding filing of the Appeal. The authorised parokar contacted the office on 11.02.2025 and on the very same day the matter was assigned to one of the Standing Counsel who drafted the Special Appeal and all the appropriate affidavits and the Appeal was filed thereafter without any further delay and if any delay has been caused the same is unintentional and bonafide. The reference has been made to judgment of the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court had stressed the need for decision of a case on merits and also taking into account the procedural complexities of the State in filing Special Appeal after seeking legal opinion and permission of the Law Department.

7. Having gone through the affidavit and taking into account that the Appeal has been filed with a delay of only 18 days, we condone the delay in filing the Appeal. The application for Condonation of Delay being allowed.

Order on Appeal

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the Appeal.

2. Having gone through the Judgment and Order impugned, we find that the Writ-Court has given finding on two issues; one relating to violation of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules in conducting the Disciplinary proceedings and the other relating to whether the punishment of termination of the Respondent was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him.

3. The Writ Court has observed that the Inquiry Officer in his report had found charges against the delinquent employee not to be proved but had observed that since the delinquent employee had himself admitted that he had forwarded the obnoxious message on Whattsapp group through his CUG mobile number, he was found guilty of charges framed against him.

4. The Writ-Court has observed that when the Inquiry Report was submitted to the Appointing Authority, it could have directed further inquiry in the matter, in case, it was dissatisfied with the Inquiry Report. However, the Appointing Authority took a novel method of referring the Inquiry Report to a Technical Committee of Two Members and framing certain issues on the technical aspects of whether the message which was sent, could have been deleted with sufficient promptness for it not to have been noticed by other members of the Whattsapp groups. The Technical Committee submitted its report without such report being given to the delinquent employee, the Disciplinary Authority based the punishment order on such technical report.

5. The Court has rejected the arguments raised by the State that the formation of the Technical Committee was merely for clarificatory purposes and the Writ-Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority had already sought a clarification from the Inquiry Officer in its letter dated 18.11.2019 which was sufficient. The Inquiry Officer had submitted a supplementary report on 16.12.2019 containing the petitioner's statement about his attempt to delete the message. In the absence of any disagreement with this report the decision formed by the Technical Committee to further investigate the matter was entirely unnecessary. The Writ-Court observed that this action of the Disciplinary Authority was contrary to the Rules of 1999 as there is no provision in the Rules of conducting a second inquiry Denovo and appointing a new Inquiry Officer.

6. The Writ-Court has also made certain observations with regard to Show Cause Notice issued to the delinquent employee which did not mention any proposed punishment other than mentioning therein that the Disciplinary Authority was convinced that the petitioner had forwarded the objectionable message.

7. With regard to the proportionality of punishment the Writ-Court had made certain observations on the basis of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and by this Court.

8. We do not find the findings recorded by the Writ-Court to be in any way perverse and liable to be interfered with on the ground of illegality or factual infirmity. However, we find that while setting aside the order of termination, the Writ-Court has ordered reinstatement of the delinquent employee with all consequential benefits. The State Government was directed to impose a minor punishment such as warning, taking into account the petitioner's admission of the mistake and lack of evidence of any damage caused by the message. The Writ-Court directed the State Government to issue appropriate orders within 30 days from receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

9. The case was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for decision on a lesser punishment, acknowledging the petitioner's fairness in dealing with the situation.

10. We find that the operative portion directing reinstatement of the delinquent employee with all consequential benefits to be against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Vs. B Karunakar and others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727, where a Constitution Bench has observed that while setting aside the order of punishment on technical grounds on the basis of violation of Principles of Natural Justice, the Court should ordinarily leave it open for the Disciplinary Authority to initiate inquiry from the stage where it was found to be vitiated and the reinstatement of the employee would be only for the purpose of conducting of the Inquiry from the stage of its vitiation and the employee would be treated to be suspended during this fresh inquiry subject to final decision in the Disciplinary proceedings.

11. The Supreme Court has also observed that while the Writ-Court may interfere in a punishment order where it shocks its conscience the Court should not ordinarily suggest or direct the punishment to be given to the delinquent employee while remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority.

12. The counsel for the Respondent Shri Akber Ahmad has stated that the Writ-Court had directed an appropriate order to be passed by the State Government within one month from the date a copy of order to be produced before him then however, the State Government has not passed any order for complying with the directions of the Writ-Court instead they have filed the Appeal with delay. It has also been submitted that the Respondent has remained out of job for the past five years, even when there was no interim order granted in the Special Appeal when it was filed in February, 2025.

13. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent is suffering from cancer and being a terminated employee it has become very difficult for him to pay for his treatment.

14. We, therefore, modify the order dated 02.01.2025 to this extent that the State-appellant shall be free to initiate Disciplinary proceedings from the stage it should vitiated i.e. from the stage when it received a copy of the Supplementary Inquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In case, the State Government / Disciplinary Authority is not convinced with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it may direct for further inquiry in the matter. In case, such further enquiry is held, the delinquent employee shall be given opportunity to appear and to place his case. After enquiry is completed the Show Cause Notice shall be issued in terms of Rule of 1999 and an appropriate order shall be passed thereafter. The State-appellant shall also take care to provide financial support for the treatment of the Respondent as per the admissible Rules.

15. The Enquiry proceedings shall be completed within a period of four months and final order shall be passed by the Disciplinary Authority within the time frame by this Court in this order.

16. In case of failure of the State Government to complete the enquiry and pass final order within a period of four months, the delinquent employee shall stand reinstated.

17. The punishment order to be ultimately passed on completion of Disciplinary Proceedings by the State Government / Appointing Authority shall govern the question of service benefits to be available to the delinquent employee. Such order relating to service benefits shall be passed in terms of the Financial Handbook by issuing a proper Show Cause Notice in this regard, for example for continuity in service and for minor punishment, if any, a proper Show Cause Notice shall be issued and only thereafter a decision shall be taken regarding service benefits to be available to the delinquent employee.

18. The Special Appeal stands disposed of.

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

October 27, 2025

N.PAL