HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12535 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 27.08.2025 awarding minor punishment of censure against petitioner as well as direction for initiating recovery against petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,68,738/-. Prayer has also been made for refund of the amount already deducted. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that proceedings were initiated against petitioner in pursuance of letter dated 12.11.2024 on the allegation that he was instrumental in incorrect pay fixation of certain employees resulting in excess payment to them. 4. It has been submitted that impugned order has been passed only on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report dated 27.03.2025. It is also submitted that impugned order is based only on rejoinder submitted by the Department to reply submitted by petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order does not advert to defences taken by petitioner which have been rejected only on ground that they were found unsatisfactory. 5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of written instructions dated 05.11.2025, a copy of which is taken on record, submits that ample opportunity was provided to petitioner prior to passing of impugned order which since imposes only a minor punishment, a fulfledged enquiry was not required. It is also submitted that it was established in the preliminary enquiry that it was the petitioner who was instrumental in granting incorrect pay-fixation resulting in excess payment to certain employees. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. S.I. (M) 972560133 , Sagar Singh Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that proceedings were initiated against petitioner with regard to allegation of being instrumental in incorrect pay fixation resulting in excess payment to certain employees. The preliminary enquiry report indicates statements of various witnesses also having been recorded but does not indicate any participation of petitioner. 7. Nonetheless, the impugned order also does not indicate any independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority who has rejected petitioner's reply to the show cause notice only on ground that it was found unsatisfactory. No details have been indicated as to why petitioner's defence was found unsatisfactory and only a vague assertion has been made. The order also indicates that it is based completely on rejoinder submitted by the Department to reply submitted by petitioner. No subjective satisfaction has been recorded by authority concerned with regard to complicity of petitioner in incorrect pay-fixation. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is evident that impugned order is cryptic in nature and does not advert at all to the factors and defence taken by petitioner. 9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to authority concerned to pass orders afresh but only after considering reply submitted by petitioner and in case the defences are based on any oral evidence, opportunity to cross-examine shall also be provided. 10. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs. November 6, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 12535 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench