Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129419 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57478 of 2005 Petitioner :- Nepal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. thru Secy. Sugarcane Dev. and Industry and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin B. Pandey, Shashi Nandan, Shyam Lal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ravindra Singh Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. Heard Shri Shyam Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Shri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.07.2005 and inquiry report dated 08.12.2003, with the further prayer to reinstate the petitioner and to pay him regular salary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inquiry vitiated in law and under identical circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed Writ Petition No.49042 of 1999 (Jai Karan Singh vs. Regional Cane Service Authority/Dy. Cane Commissioner, Meerut & others) vide order dated 10.11.2010. It is further contended that against the aforesaid order of the Co- ordinate Bench, Special Appeal No.415 of 2012 (Regional Cane Services Authority/Dy. Cane Comm., Meerut & Anr.) was filed by the Department, which has been dismissed on 30.08.2018. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Department submits that after dismissal of the Special Appeal, the matter was not agitated further. 5. There is no dispute between the parties as regards nature of factual and legal proposition involved in the present case and that of the case of Jai Karan Singh (supra). 6. The order in the case of Jai Karan Singh (supra) reveals that the termination order was passed in that case on 11.11.1999 and the same was set aside with a direction that petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. 7. This Court in the case of Jai Karan Singh (supra) allowed the writ petition by recording following observations:- "4. Besides, the fact that the Regulation itself contemplates fixation of a date for oral enquiry, examination of evidence etc., even otherwise it is well settled that enquiry officer appointed by disciplinary officer can not adopt a short cut process by proceeding to assume the charges proved unless disproved by the delinquent employee and cannot submit his report without holding an enquiry. From the perusal of the enquiry report as well as the impugned order, it does not appear that at any point of time the enquiry officer held oral enquiry, whatsoever. though specifically contemplated under Regulation 68. The entire proceeding, therefore, are illegal and vitiated in law being in violation of principles of natural justice as also the procedure prescribed under Regulation 68. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held. it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills & others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal & others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001 decided on 06.05.2005. All these authorities have been referred and followed by this Court in Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and others 2008 (3) ESC 1667. 6. In view of the above exposition of law, the writ petition succeeds and allowed. The impugned order of punishment 11.11.1999 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. 7. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents from proceeding afresh against the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law." 8. The Division Bench, while dismissing the Special Appeal No.415 of 2012, observed as under:- "In the case in hand admittedly, the employer failed to discharge the onus aforesaid. So far as the explanation given by the appellant in pursuance to the statement of charges is concerned, suffice to state that it was only a preliminary explanation to satisfy the employer that there was no misconduct warranting any disciplinary action. The employer after considering the same appointed an enquiry officer and the enquiry officer was under obligation to conduct an enquiry as per Regulation 68, but that was not observed. The appellant-employer, as a matter of fact, utterly failed to establish the charges by holding a regular enquiry and therefore, the learned Single Bench rightly set aside the order passed by Disciplinary Authority. No interference in the matter is warranted. The appeal is dismissed. " 9. The petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation during pendency of the writ petition. 10. Nevertheless, considering the nature of dispute, the petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the decision in Jai Karan Singh (supra). 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 12. The impugned order dated 20.07.2005 is hereby set aside. 13. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad