Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39531 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5433 of 2002 Petitioner :- Raj Deo Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Princ.Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganga Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ganga Singh learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 24.5.1996 imposing penalty of reversion to the basic pay scale along with adverse entry. Also under challenge is the appellate order dated 27.3.2002 whereby petitioner's appeal has been rejected. Further prayer for direction to opposite parties for payment of salary along with arrears of salary for the period of suspension with interest has also been sought. 3. It has been submitted that initially petitioner while in service as Lekhpal was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.05.1995 containing four charges, the first charge pertaining to incorrect inclusion of 25 persons for purposes of allotment over Gaon Sabha property. Second charge pertained to falsifying records to mutate names of Udai Raj Singh, Hridai Raj Singh and Chandra Raj Singh in revenue records in place of Gaon Sabha. Third charge pertained to changing main page of Khasra for the year 1395 fasli in the records pertaining to 1398 fasli in order to hide his misconduct. Fourth charge pertained to destroying records of Khasra 1398 fasli in order to benefit the aforesaid persons. 4. It is submitted that in pursuance of charge-sheet, inquiry proceedings ensued resulting in submissions of inquiry report dated 24.05.1995 holding petitioner guilty of all the charges whereafter the punishment order dated 24.05.1996 was passed and appeal there-against has been rejected. 5. It has been submitted that inquiry proceedings are vitiated on account of the fact that there are based only on assumptions and surmises and without consideration of material evidence which was required to be considered by the inquiry officer. It is submitted that incorrect burden of proof has been placed upon petitioner and that in fact the inquiry proceedings were concluded without any oral inquiry though demanded by petitioner. It is further submitted that documents relied upon have not been corroborated by the evidence. Learned counsel submits that the said grounds were clearly raised by petitioner in his memorandum of appeal but have been cursorily dealt with by the appellate authority. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of U.P. and others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 and in the case of Ankur versus State of U.P. and others passed in writ Petition No. 11749 (S/S) of 2021 passed by this Court. 6. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that a perusal of inquiry report will make it evident that findings have been recorded against petitioner looking into material documentary evidence which clearly indicates complicity of petitioner in incorrect inclusion of allottees over Gaon Sabha property and his role in destroying evidence to hide his misconduct. It is submitted that the inquiry officer has clearly referred to the aspect that the name of beneficiaries was included in revenue records without any orders for such mutation by the competent authority and therefore burden was naturally upon the petitioner to produce such an order whereby entries were made in favour of such persons. It is further submitted that since petitioner has failed to discharge burden of proof upon him by him, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned orders since they are based on the inquiry report with inquiry proceedings having been held in accordance with law and providing ample opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that with regard to charge no.1, the inquiry report itself indicates that initially the Land Management Committee submitted a proposal for allotment over gaon sabha property in favour of 74 persons on 08.12.1991 which was followed by second resolution by the committee dated 15.07.1992 in favour of 25 additional persons. The second proposal dated 15.07.1992 has thereafter been disregarded by the inquiry officer primarily on the ground that same is fabricated and it was passed at the instance of petitioner. 8. The inquiry report, however, does not indicate any evidence whereby the inquiry officer has reached such a conclusion that the second resolution dated 15.07.1992 was either fabricated or was at the instance of petitioner particularly since no member of the land management committee or even the pradhan was ever examined by the inquiry officer. 9. In such circumstances, the finding pertaining to charge No.1 is clearly erroneous not being placed on any cogent material evidence. 10. A perusal of the inquiry report also it reveals that findings recorded by inquiry officer pertaining to remaining charges also is based only on the fact that inquiry officer himself perused the original records and has thereafter recorded his satisfaction regarding complicity of petitioner with regard to charges levelled against him. It appears that there is no oral inquiry worth the name held in the inquiry proceedings and no prosecution witness was ever produced to substantiate the allegations that petitioner was instrumental in destruction or concealment of original records. The entire inquiry is based only on documentary evidence without any oral inquiry having been held. 11. It is also evident that the aforesaid aspect has thereafter been raised by petitioner in his memorandum of appeal but has not been considered by the appellate authority who has also followed the reasoning recorded in inquiry report as upheld by the order of punishment. 12. It is undisputed that provisions of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 are applicable upon petitioner and therefore the inquiry officer was required to act in accordance of Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules 1999 by permitting oral evidence to substantiate documents whichever relied upon by department. 13. The aforesaid aspect has also held that by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi(supra) and Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra). The relevant portion of Roop Singh Negi (supra) is as follows: "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. The relevant portion of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) is as follows : "27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge." "28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents." 14. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident that entire inquiry proceedings have been held only on the basis of documents which were perused by inquiry officer personally but it is readily evident that no oral inquiry was ever held to corroborate the documents which were before the inquiry officer. 15. Charge pertaining to concealment of original records levelled against petitioner has also not been substantiated by any oral evidence, which was necessary to do particularly in view of the fact that there appears to be some confusion as per inquiry report whether such concealment was at the instance of petitioner or by his predecessor on that post, Mr. Gayalal Lekhpal. 16. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances and judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that inquiry proceedings are vitiated for not having complied with provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 inasmuch as no effective opportunity was provided to petitioner to defend himself and that the documentary evidence relied upon in the inquiry proceedings have not been substantiated by any oral evidence. 17. Consequently the impugned orders dated 24.05.1996 and 27.03.2002 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. Since almost 30 years have passed since charge was served upon petitioner, no useful purpose would be solved in remanding the dispute for enquiry afresh and it would be almost impossible to obtain oral evidence after so many years. 18. In pursuance thereof, petitioner shall be granted notional benefit with regard to the post which he was holding alongwith consequential benefits excluding the benefit of promotion. 19. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench