Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:968 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7715 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ram Raj Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Rural Devlp. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ninnie Shrivastava,Ajay Singh,Mukul Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent(s). 2. Under challenge is the order dated 17.10.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with two penalties namely (a) withholding of two increments with permanent effect and (b) a censure. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner was in service, he had been issued with a charge sheet dated 12.02.2019, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition. The inquiry proceedings were conducted in which the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 10.06.2019, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition, in which, of the four charges leveled against the petitioner, charges No.1, 2 and 3 have been partially proved and charge No.4 was found to be not proved. 4. The disciplinary authority without issuing any dissent note or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had differed from the inquiry officer's report and passed the order impugned dated 17.10.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. The differing of the disciplinary authority was to the extent of charges No.2 & 3 which were found to be fully proved. 5. The contention is that in case the disciplinary authority differs from the finding of the inquiry officer on any charge then he is duty bound to issue dissent note to the delinquent employee indicating the grounds on which he intends to dissent and it is only after considering the reply of the delinquent employee on the said point, that an order can be passed. 6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the Rule 9(2) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999") to contend that the said rules categorically provide that in case the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Office on any charge then he has to record its own findings thereon and after giving a copy of the same to the delinquent employee ask him to submit his reply and thereafter pass a reasoned order of punishment as provided under Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1999. 7. The contention is that no dissent note was issued to the petitioner prior to finding of the disciplinary authority vis-a-vis finding of the Inquiry Officer on charges No.2 & 3, which were found to be fully proved vis-a-vis the same having been found to be partially proved by the Inquiry Officer, which thus vitiates the punishment order. 8. The other argument is that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. S.C. Parashar (2006) 3 SCC 167, a punishment order cannot be an amalgam of major and minor penalty, as has been imposed in the instant case, inasmuch as by means of a common order, major and minor penalty cannot be imposed, which also vitiates the order impugned. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel, on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit, does not dispute that no dissent note or reasons were given by the disciplinary authority prior to differing from the findings of the Inquiry Officer on charges No.2 & 3 which had been found to be partially proved by the Inquiry Officer and in turn has found to be fully proved by the disciplinary authority and a punishment order having been imposed on the petitioner. Thus, non issuance of a dissent note, as provided under Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1999 clearly vitiates the order impugned. 10. Learned Standing counsel also does not dispute the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Prashar (supra) pertaining to punishment order to be not amalgam of major and minor penalty. 11. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 17.10.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to issue a dissent note to the petitioner indicating the tentative reasons for deferring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and thereafter to pass a fresh order keeping in view of the observations made above after considering the reply of the petitioner, if any. Let a dissent note be issued within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and a final order be passed within a period of next four weeks after considering the representation of the petitioner, if any. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench