HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 3156 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. This petition was filed by the State on 19.04.2024. Till date notices have not been issued. Supplementary affidavit has been filed in compliance of the earlier order. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the State and having perused the records what comes out is that while the private respondent was posted as Ranger at Chandpur Range, Forest Division, Bijnor disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on 21.09.2012. Charge-sheet dated 11.12.2012 was issued to him leveling three charges. The private respondent-claimant demanded copies of documents on which the Inquiry Officer directed the concerned official to provide the said documents but the same was not provided on account of which the private respondent- claimant could not submit his reply. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.09.2013 in which he found the charges proved against the private respondent-claimant. A show cause notice was issued to the private respondent-claimant based on the inquiry report which was responded by him vide reply dated 20.02.2014. Based on his reply, the disciplinary authority on 09.07.2014 directed the Inquiry Officer to conduct a fresh inquiry considering the response of the delinquent employee. A fresh inquiry was conducted in which the charges were not found proved. The said inquiry report is dated 18.12.2014. The disciplinary authority differed with the inquiry report but instead of proceeding under Rule 9(2) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.And Another .....Petitioner(s) Satish Kumar .....Respondent(s) and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1999'), he passed the punishment order dated 01.09.2016 after obtaining the opinion of the Presenting Officer, who in fact, was representing the department in the inquiry. The opinion was submitted by the Presenting Officer on 25.04.2016 and the punishment order was passed thereafter on 01.09.2016. No compliance of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999 was made. 3. Even if the Disciplinary Authority was to take a different opinion than the one rendered by the Inquiry Officer, Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1999 should have been adhered. There is no way that the Disciplinary Authority could have sought an opinion from the Presenting Officer and then proceeded in the matter. Neither any disagreement was recorded nor the private respondent-claimant was confronted with such disagreement. He was required to apply his independent mind, objectively, to the facts and evidence on record and take a considered and fair decision in the matter, which he did not do. The Tribunal cannot be faulted for interfering in the matter. The compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 25.04.2023 has not been made till date. We find that the private respondent -claimant was 60 years of age in the year 2018, we are now in the year 2025, obviously he has retired. 4. In this view of the matter, we see no error in this regard as apparently such a course of action could not have been adopted by the disciplinary authority dehors the Rule 9 (2) of the Rules, 1999. 5. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement nor to grant any liberty to the petitioner to proceed afresh against the private respondent-claimant, especially considering the fact that the judgement impugned has not been complied in the past 7 years in spite of there being any stay and also as the private respondent-claimant has already retired in the year 2018. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 16, 2025 -Piyush- WRIA No. 3156 of 2024 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench