Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15592-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2695 of 2025 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise Lko And 2 Others Respondent :- Bharat Ratna Ashok Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition filed by the State has arisen out of the judgement and order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 753 of 2012 allowing the claim petition filed by the respondent with all consequential benefits. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that based on vigilance report, a show cause notice was issued against the respondent- delinquent officer on 07.07.2011 granting him 15 days time to submit his explanation. The delinquent officer filed his reply to the show cause notice on 20.07.2011, inter alia, stating that he was not furnished with a copy of the vigilance report and the vigilance inquiry, as a matter of fact, had proceeded in a most whimsical manner. 4. A second show notice was also issued to the respondent on 11.11.2011 clarifying the position that all the relevant details with respect to the allegations have been disclosed in the show cause notice and an opportunity was accordingly afforded to him to submit his reply against the charges contained in the show cause notice. 5. The respondent submitted his reply against the second show cause notice on 09.12.2011 reiterating his stand taken earlier in his reply filed on 20.07.2011. 6. It is in the backdrop of aforesaid show cause notices and the replies filed in response thereto that the disciplinary authority has proceeded to take a final decision and consequently a decision for imposition of penalty in the nature of censure punishment coupled with withholding of integrity was taken against him. 7. The very introductory part of the order of punishment passed on 04.05.2012 clearly records that on submission of the vigilance report before the State Government, a decision had been taken to the effect that the delinquent employee may be visited with a minor punishment coupled with withholding of his integrity. 8. Once the inquiry proceedings had proceeded with a predetermined mind, it clearly implies that the show cause notice issued to the delinquent employee-respondent was merely an eye-wash and the very procedure adopted therefor was not in conformity with law. 9. Having regard to the allegations in the show cause notice, we also fail to understand as to how the State could classify a case of acquisition of disproportionate assets in the category of minor penalties with a predetermined mind. The procedure prescribed for disciplinary proceedings is well defined under the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999. The allegations, in a case wherever the disciplinary proceedings are warranted, are probed through a vigilance inquiry or otherwise for arriving at a preliminary satisfaction to initiate departmental enquiry. It is only thereafter that having regard to the gravity of allegations disciplinary proceedings are initiated. The initiation of disciplinary proceeding for a minor penalty is different as compared to the procedure provided for imposition of major penalty. 10. In the present case though the procedure adopted was for a minor penalty but the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority shows his predetermined mind as regards taking a decision for imposition of a minor penalty for which the issuance of show cause notice and affording opportunity for filing a reply was merely a formality. 11. In the present case, the impugned order clearly reflects the predetermined mind of the disciplinary authority which certainly vitiates the impugned action. 12. Although, from the impugned judgement passed by the learned Tribunal we do not gather a clear finding having been recorded to this effect but it is apparent that the tribunal has misdirected itself on the premise of the procedure as if the proceedings were initiated for a major penalty which was not the case at hand. 13. In any case once it is amply clear from the impugned order that the disciplinary authority has proceeded with a predetermined mind and there is no explanation or justification pleaded by the State in the present writ petition as to how such a procedure would be fair, thus, we come to an irresistible conclusion that the impugned order on account of this vital lacuna deserves to be set aside, however, we leave it open to the State for proceeding against the delinquent officer afresh by following the procedure prescribed under law. 14. We accordingly uphold the judgement/order passed by the Tribunal to the extent of setting aside the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority but on a different ground as mentioned above. However liberty is granted to the State for initiating the proceedings against the respondent afresh from the stage of issuance of show cause notice which may be treated to be a charge-sheet within the meaning of Rule-7 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the disciplinary proceedings may be completed accordingly in accordance with law, not later than a period of six month from today. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Rajeev Singh J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Shahnaz Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench