HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10449 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to delete the respondents No.8 and 9 from the array of parties. 2. Prayer made is allowed. 3. Accordingly, let necessary corrections be incorporated during the course of the day. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Beena Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.5 to 7. 5. Under challenge is the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi i.e. respondent No.5, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner, after due inquiry, has been imposed with the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 6. The legal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 27.06.2025, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the petition. 7. Upon a show cause notice being issued along with the inquiry Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwani Kumar, Swarnim Pandey, Varun Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh Shivam Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) report, the petitioner had indicated that he had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also could not produce his own witnesses. 8. The disciplinary authority vide an order dated 26.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure-18 to the petition, on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner, has given an opportunity to the petitioner to appear on 29.07.2025 for cross-examination of the witnesses as were examined by the Inquiry Officer and for producing his witnesses. 9. Subsequent thereto, impugned punishment order has been passed. 10. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the modus adopted by the disciplinary authority of inviting the petitioner to produce his witnesses and to cross-examine the witnesses as were examined by the Inquiry Officer is alien to the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and thus the order impugned, having been passed subsequent to the letter of the disciplinary authority dated 26.07.2025, deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. 11. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 as well as Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.5 to 7, do not dispute that after the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice, there was no requirement for the disciplinary authority to either require the petitioner to produce witnesses or to cross-examine the witnesses produced during the course of the inquiry. Thus, it is apparent that a completely novel procedure, which is not provided under the Rules, 1999, has been allowed. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order impugned dated 11.08.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. 13. The disciplinary authority shall proceed from the stage of considering the reply of the petitioner to the inquiry report and thereafter order would be passed taking the inquiry to its logical end. 14. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of four WRIA No. 10449 of 2025 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 9, 2025 cks/- WRIA No. 10449 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench