Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39448 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7454 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ray Sahab Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evm Pushtaahar Civil Sectt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhilasha Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Ms. Abhilasha Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 17.05.2024 whereby major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon petitioner. 3. Earlier this Court has passed order dated 09.09.2024, which is as follows:- "Heard Sri Abhilasha Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri RPS Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. At the very outset, Ms. Abhilasha Pandey has requested that she may be permitted to delete the name of Mr. Adish Mishra who has been impleaded by name as opposite party no. 3 but the Disctrict Programmer Officer, Vikas Bhawan Agra may be arrayed as opposite party no. 3. Considering the aforesaid request, Ms. Abhilasha Pandey is permitted to delete the name of Mr. Adish Mishra, during the course of the day. District Programmer Officer, Vikas Bhawan Agar shall remain as a party as opposite party no. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 17.05.2024(Annexure No 1 to the writ petition) to the extent it imposed the major penalty of withholding of two increments with permanent effect. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to modify order dated 17.05.2024 to the extent of penalty levelled against him and to release all consequential benefits in the favor of petitioner." The main ground to assail the impugned punishment order is that by means of the punishment order, major punishment has been awarded to the petitioner on the basis of enquiry report where the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing to defend himself properly. Enquiry officer did not fix any date, time and place for conducting the oral enquiry and only on the basis of defence reply so submitted by the petitioner, the enquiry has been concluded. She has also submitted that the law is trite on the point that if any employee is awarded major punishment, the enquiry officer shall afford proper opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee by fixing date, time and place for conducting oral enquiry, and if the oral enquiry has not been conducted, such enquiry would be nullity in the eyes of law and the punishment order which is passed on such enquiry report would also be nullity in the eyes of law. Prima facie, after perusal of the enquiry report I find that no date, time and place has been fixed for conducting oral enquiry and the disciplinary authority awarded major punishment, i.e., withholding two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect considering the findings of enquiry officer. This is the case where the specific plea has been taken by the counsel for the petitioner that this is the case of no enquiry and major punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner on the basis of such enquiry. Therefore, a short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties maybe filed within a period of 15 days, failing which the direction may be issued on the next date for personal appearance of any officer concerned. List on 30th September, 2024 as fresh. This matter may be taken up immediately after fresh cases." 4. In pursuance thereof, a short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties and in paragraph-8, it has been admitted that inquiry proceedings were concluded after examination of documents relied in the charge-sheet and reply submitted by petitioner. The averment made in writ petition that no oral inquiry was held to corroborate or substantiate documentary evidence relied upon in the charge-sheet, has not been denied. It has been stated that charges no. 2 and 3 were found partially proved while charge no.2 of the supplementary charge-sheet was found fully proved against petitioner. 5. In view of aforesaid facts, it is thus evident and admitted by opposite parties that inquiry proceedings were concluded without following procedure indicated in paragraph-7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which make it mandatory upon the opposite parties to have concluded inquiry proceedings by holding oral inquiry as well to substantiate documentary evidence which was relied upon by Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report. 6. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to conclude inquiry proceedings afresh, if so required, from the stage of submission of reply by petitioner and strictly in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. 7. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench