HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 7774 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for parties no.1 & 2 and Ms. Pragati Singh, Advocate, holding brief on behalf of Mr. R. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.3. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 21.05.2025 awarding major penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect upon petitioner. 3. It has been submitted that earlier a charge-sheet was issued to petitioner in the year 2009 indicating three charges levelled against him with regard to certain acts and omissions committed by petitioner in the course of repairing and for maintenance of a dam during floods. 4. The charge-sheet was replied to by petitioner and thereafter culminated in filing of the inquiry report dated 28.02.2013 exonerating petitioner of first two charges while holding him guilty of the third charge. In pursuance thereof, major penalty was inflicted upon petitioner vide 06.09.2013 which was challenged before the State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.1629 of 2013 and was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 16.11.2018 primarily on the ground that petitioner was not supplied a copy of the inquiry Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Radha Vinod Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation And Water Resources Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) report. The matter was thereafter remitted to the disciplinary authority for passing fresh orders after supply of inquiry report. It is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that charge no.3 which pertained to withholding of documents by him from the team which was sent for verification of acts performed by petitioner and his team in maintenance of dam, was consequential to the charges one and two and petitioner having been exonerated with regard to the aforesaid two charges, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have held him guilty of the third charge. It is further submitted that even otherwise the aspect as to whether the relevant documents were ever provided by petitioner to the inspecting team could have been substantiated only by members of the team itself but none of the members of the said team were ever produced as witnesses in the inquiry proceedings and therefore obviously no opportunity to cross-examine was ever supply to petitioner. It is therefore submitted that proceedings have been held in violation of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1999. 6. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the charge no.3 in fact was distinct from charges one and two and pertained to withholding of relevant documents by petitioner from the inspecting team which amounted to a misconduct due to which petitioner has been punished by a major penalty. It is submitted that ample opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner as is quite evident not only from the inquiry report but also from the impugned order itself. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the charge- sheet, it is evident that charge no.1 pertains to clearing of certain trees for purposes of maintenance of the dam. Charge no.2 pertains to re-enforcement of the dam by mud while charge no.3 pertains to not providing relevant documents to the Task Force. 8. As has been indicated hereinabove, petitioner was exonerated of WRIA No. 7774 of 2025 2 charges no.1 and 2. A perusal of the inquiry report would make it evident that exoneration of petitioner with regard to aforesaid charges no.1 and 2 is clearly based on the aspect of documentary evidence as well as statements of villagers which was recorded. The report itself indicates that verification of the work was done by the Divisional Task Force and also adverts to various documents indicating payments having been made by the contractor concerned for Commission of the aforesaid acts for maintenance of the dam. 9. The aspect of exoneration of petitioner with regard to charges no.1 and 2 has been upheld by the disciplinary authority in the impugned order. It is only the aspect of petitioner being found guilty with charge no.3 which requires consideration. 10. Perusal of the inquiry report with regard to charge no.3 also makes it evident that petitioner has been found guilty of aforesaid charge only on the basis of reply submitted by him whereafter the inquiry officer has immediately concluded that petitioner was guilty of non-supply of relevant documents to the inspecting team. 11. It is quite evident from the inquiry report that no person from the inspecting team was ever produced as a witness during the inquiry proceedings. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a charge could have been substantiated only by production of members of the inspecting team who alone could have given statement that petitioner did not supply them with relevant documents. Even otherwise the said charge does not appear to be correct in view of exoneration of petitioner with regard to charges no.1 and 2 which clearly are linked with the charge no.3. Once the petitioner has already been exonerated with regard to charges no.1 and 2, his being found guilty for charge no.3 is incomprehensible. 12. It is also evident that despite proceedings having been held for imposition of major penalty, the procedure as required to be adopted under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 as evidently not being followed since no oral inquiry whatsoever has taken place and no witness has been produced to corroborate or substantiate charge no.3 levelled against petitioner. WRIA No. 7774 of 2025 3 13. Ordinarily in such a situation, the dispute is required to be remanded for consideration afresh but in view of the fact that charges pertain to the year 2008 and also in view of the fact that petitioner has been exonerated of charges no.1 & 2 and the concomitant and consequential charge no.3 being dependent on the aforesaid charges, this Court does not find any occasion to remit the matter for consideration afresh. 14. In view thereof, impugned order dated 21.05.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. Consequential benefits shall accrue to petitioner. 15. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. September 10, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 7774 of 2025 4 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench