Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30102 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5553 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajani Sankhwar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Yadava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 to 6. 2. In view of the proposed order, the notice to opposite party No.7 is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned punishment order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the opposite party No.3/ District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi, contained as Annexure No.1 with the writ petition. (ii) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued commanding the opposite party No.3 treating to be continued the services of petitioner in the same status as it was prior to passing the impugned punishment order dated 25.04.2025 as well as the suspension order dated 31.08.2024. (iii) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued commanding the opposite party No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi to pay regular salary with the arrear of salary from the month of September, 2024 to the petitioner. (iv) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may also be issued commanding the opposite party No.3/ District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 during the pendecy of the writ petition." 4. The main contention to assail the impugned punishment order is that the punishment order has been passed on the inquiry report dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure No.8) and perusal thereof reveals that the departmental inquiry has not been conducted and concluded in terms of Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (here- in-after referred to as the "Rules, 1999"). 5. By means of the impugned punishment order, the petitioner has been awarded major punishment whereby her one increment has been withheld with cumulative effect. However, the law is trite on the point that if any employee is awarded major punishment on the basis of inquiry report, it is duty and responsibility of the Disciplinary Authority to see as to whether the inquiry has been conducted and concluded by following due procedure of law. The inquiry report reveals that the defence reply of the petitioner has been considered and the findings have been recorded, but the petitioner has not been intimated any date, time and place to conduct an oral inquiry to prove the charges. Had such letter been issued to the petitioner, he would have availed opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, who were examined, but no such opportunity was given to the petitioner, as recital to this effect has not been given/ indicated in the inquiry report. 6. Therefore, prima-facie, it appears that the petitioner has been awarded major punishment on the basis of defective inquiry report. Hence, on the sole ground and reason the impugned punishment order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure No.1) as well as the inquiry report dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure No.8) are hereby set aside/ quashed. 7. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority/ Inquiry Officer to conduct the denovo inquiry from the stage of defect, if it is so required, and the inquiry shall be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law and procedure so prescribed under Rules, 1999 by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with expedition preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order subject to proper co-operation of the petitioner with the departmental inquiry inasmuch as no departmental inquiry may be conducted and concluded without proper co-operation of the charged employee. 8. In view of the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition is allowed. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench