Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44915 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8610 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramakant Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Avinash Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 15.07.2025 whereby petitioner has been reverted to the basic pay. 3. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of enquiry report as well as punishment order will make it evident that primary allegations levelled against petitioner was of a video being circulated on social media indicating petitioner having sought and being provided bribe. 4. It is submitted that enquiry report dated 18.06.2025 clearly admits the fact that video appears to have been interpolated and edited but no certification of genuineness of the video was ever sought by the enquiry officer and the enquiry report pre- supposes petitioner being complicit in the allegations levelled against him only on ground that he has not been able to rebut the allegations made. It is submitted that no oral enquiry worth the name was ever conducted and enquiry proceedings are completely in violation of Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999[hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1999]. 5. Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing during enquiry proceedings but failed to rebut the allegations levelled against him by any cogent evidence. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, particularly enquiry report dated 18.06.2025, it is evident that the video being circulated on the social media with allegations of bribe against petitioner does not appear to have been certified by any agency as being genuine. The enquiry officer has pre- supposed the genuineness of such a video but also indicates in the enquiry report that it appears to have been tampered with/edited. It is also evident that procedure as required to be followed in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 has not been adhered to at all and major penalty has been imposed only on a cursory enquiry. 7. Even the impugned order of punishment dated 15.07.2025 is virtually non-speaking since it does not at all advert to aforesaid aspects. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion that enquiry proceedings are clearly in violation of Rule-7 of the Rules of 1999, the impugned order is clearly untenable and is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. The enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority would be well-advised to peruse the Rules of 1999 prior to undertaking such a procedure for imposition of major penalty. 9.This petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself primarily on ground that vital defect in enquiry proceedings is quite evident from material on record and cannot be supplemented or explained by any affidavit as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & others v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851. 10. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself granting liberty to opposite parties to enquire afresh, if required, but only after certification of genuineness of aforesaid video and following procedure as indicated in rules 7 of the Rules of 1999. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench