HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 22084 of 2020 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4. 2. Opposite party no.5 has been wrongly impleaded and therefore, stands deleted. 3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30.06.2018 whereby petitioner has been visited with the punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. Also under challenge is the order dated 30.04.2019 whereby his revision against punishment order has been rejected. 4. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order will make it evident that the same has been passed only on the basis of a complaint which was received by the officials concerned whereafter inspection took place on 01.03.2018 and holding petitioner guilty of dereliction of duty, the impugned punishment order has been passed without following procedure indicated in Rule-7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 5. It is submitted that withholding of increment with cumulative effect clearly comes within scope of major penalty has defined under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1999 and therefore, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have followed the mandatory procedure required in terms of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sheo Sahai Lal Srivastav, Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Amar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Revenue And Ors. .....Respondent(s) Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. 6. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and relying upon the counter affidavit filed, submits that a complaint was received against a businessman, in pursuance of which a raid was conducted by a team of Food Safety Officers on 01.03.2018 with seizing of samples. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 06.06.2018 to which a reply was also submitted and therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that it is in fact upon consideration of reply submitted that the impugned punishment order has been passed. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from the impugned order itself that there is absolutely no discussion with regard to any reply submitted by petitioner. The order in fact does not even refer to any show cause notice being issued to petitioner. The order also indicates that after noticing the sequence of events, petitioner has been visited with the major penalty. 8. It appears that the aforesaid order was thereafter challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1835 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.10.2018 granting liberty to petitioner to file a revision before State Government. The same has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 30.04.2019 but again does not indicate any opportunity of hearing provided to petitioner in terms of Rules 7 of the Rules of 1999. It is also relevant that in paragraphs 14 to 20 of the writ petition, specific plea has been raised by petitioner that no inquiry proceedings as contemplated under Rule-7 of the Rules of 1999 were ever undertaken by opposite parties prior to passing of the impugned order. A perusal of counter affidavit, particularly paragraphs 32 till 38 do not indicate any denial of the aforesaid fact. 9. A perusal of the Rules of 1999 clearly indicates the aspect that in terms of Rule 3 thereof, imposition of punishment of withholding increments with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty and therefore, WRIA No. 22084 of 2020 2 procedure for imposition of punishment as indicated in Rule 7 of the aforesaid rules was mandatorily required to be followed by the opposite parties. 10. Such a procedure having not been undertaken prior to passing of impugned orders, renders the entire proceedings and the impugned orders vitiated. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 30.06.2018 and 30.04.2019 being unsustainable are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh, if they so desire but only after following procedure indicated in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. 12. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. September 3, 2025 Satish WRIA No. 22084 of 2020 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench