HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5379 of 2024 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Head Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel for opposite parties no.1,2,4,5,6,7,10, Mr. Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.3, Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, leaned counsel for opposite party no.8 and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.9. 2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 12.04.2024, 26.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 whereby petitioner has been found guilty of charges levelled against him and has been visited with the punishment of dismissal from service along with directions being issued for Institution of a suit for recovery against him. 3. Earlier on 27.10.2025, following order had been passed: "(1) Heard on the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel for opposite party No.3, particularly pertaining to the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwani Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Abhinav Trivedi, Shikhar Srivastava, Tripuresh Mishra, Uday Veer Singh Ashish Saini .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Cane Development/ Sugar Industries Deptt. Lko. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s) aspect that dismissal order dated 26.04.2024 has not been challenged by petitioner in appeal and therefore, a writ petition directly is not maintainable. (2) Secondly, it has been submitted that order dated 30.04.2024 is only with regard to filing of a Suit for recovery against petitioner and with such Suit already having been instituted, such prayer, in fact, has become infructuous. It is furthermore submitted that even with regard to say, since a Suit has already been filed, recourse can be taken by petitioner to Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. It is further submitted that said order has been passed in terms of Government Order dated 28.08.2000 and with such Government Order not under challenge, consequential order dated 12.04.2024 cannot be challenged. (3) Thirdly, it has been submitted that so far as order dated 12.04.2024 regarding denial of subsistence allowance is concerned, petitioner failed to join at the place of attachment along with requisite documents and affidavit and therefore subsistence allowance has been rightly rejected. (4) It is also submitted that order dated 30.04.2024 has been passed in pursuance of the Government Order dated 22.04.2000 which is not under challenge and therefore the order under challenge being consequential in nature, the writ petition would not be maintainable. WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 2 (5) So far as the aspect pertaining to availability of alternative remedy of appeal is concerned, learned counsel for answering opposite party No.3 seeks time to cite judgments to buttress his submissions that where documents are examined by the Enquiry Officer pertaining to day-to-day administration and official work such documents are not required to be corroborated by oral evidence. (6) List this case in the next week, as fresh. " 4. Elaborating upon his preliminary objections, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 has reiterated the aspect that order of dismissal dated 26.04.2024 was required to be challenged by petitioner in appeal particularly since disputed questions of fact are involved. 5. The aforesaid preliminary objections raised involve question of fact and law and therefore will be dealt with subsequently. 6. The primary submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that by means of charge-sheet dated 25.05.2023, a total of 14 charges were levelled against petitioner, particularly pertaining to interpolations being made in the cheques and also of embezzlement of Government Funds by defalcation into his own, his wife’s and his mother’s account. 7. It is submitted that upon receipt of the charge-sheet, petitioner submitted a letter dated 29.06.2023 requiring certain documents indicated to be relevant for purposes of submitting a WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 3 reply. It is submitted that despite the relevant documents specifically indicated in the letter, the same were never provided to petitioner due to which he was unable to submit a reply and the inquiry proceedings thus concluded ex parte imposing the aforesaid punishment. 8. It is also the case of petitioner that a perusal of inquiry report will make it evident that the same is based primarily on the preliminary inquiry report and no oral evidence whatsoever was ever held to prove charges levelled against him pertaining to interpolation in the cheques and defalcation of the aforesaid amounts. It is therefore submitted that the aforesaid proceedings are in violation of Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 9. Learned counsel for opposite parties have placed reliance on following judgments in the cases of Satyendra Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 29758 of 2018), State of Uttar Praesh & Ors. Versus Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010)2 SCC 772 and Rakesh Kumar Gautam versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Seceratary Department of Irrigation & Water Resources LKO and 2 others passed in Writ A No.8475 of 2025. 10. Learned counsel for opposite parties, particularly opposite party no.3 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that upon receipt of the letter dated 29.06.2023, all the relevant documents running into 1113 pages was sought to be supplied to petitioner but most of the WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 4 documents were refused to be received by petitioner and in some cases, were returned after being received. It is thus submitted that all the relevant documents as indicated in the charge- sheet, the letter dated 29.06.2023 and those which were relevant for adjudication of proceedings were in fact received by the petitioner who deliberately did not file a reply only to prolong the proceedings. It is submitted that it was in these circumstances that the inquiry officer was compelled to proceed with the inquiry ex parte. 11. Learned counsel has adverted to the inquiry report dated 06.12.2023 to submit that all the relevant documents have been clearly indicated in the inquiry report itself, which were examined by the inquiry officer. It is also submitted that since petitioner did not deny the allegations levelled upon him, the documents which form the basis of charge-sheet were relied upon by the inquiry officer including the preliminary inquiry report. It is thus submitted that all the relevant documents were considered by the inquiry officer whereafter only the inquiry report was submitted and forms the basis of the impugned order. 12. Although learned counsel for opposite party No.3 has already filed preliminary objections and seeks time to file detailed counter-affidavit but the same is being rejected in view of the fact that all the relevant documentation is already on record as evidenced by the impugned order and only the aspect of Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, being followed or not is under question. WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 5 13. Learned counsel for opposite party no.3 further submits that since all the relevant documents pertained to those kept in the normal course of business, no oral evidence is necessary to prove the charges particularly when the charged officer has not attended the inquiry proceedings. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered in the case of State of Bank of India and others versus Narendra Kumar Pandey;(2013)2 SCC 740. 14. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that primary allegation levelled against petitioner is of interpolation in Government cheques by increasing the amount indicated therein and being responsible for credit in his own account and the accounts of his wife and mother while indicating the amount credited in his mother’s account to be that of pension. 15. From a perusal of documents on record, it is the specific case of petitioner that all the relevant documents sought by him vide letter vide 29.06.2023 were never supplied to him. On the contrary, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 has adverted to a detailed examination of the aforesaid fact as indicated in the inquiry report to submit that all the relevant documents as sought for were in fact provided to petitioner who refused to receive the same. 16. The aforesaid question is clearly a disputed question of fact particularly since neither the inquiry report nor the impugned order advert to the documents which were supplied to petitioner WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 6 and were refused. In such circumstances, it would be inappropriate to comment upon the aspect as to whether relevant documents sought for by petitioner were ever supplied to him or not. 17. Nonetheless despite the aforesaid circumstance, since learned counsel for petitioner has adverted to the fact that no oral inquiry was held during the inquiry proceedings, it would be appropriate to advert to the aforesaid fact only. 18. From a perusal of the inquiry report, it is evident that charges have been indicated therein with the aspect that petitioner has not replied to same. Thereafter a consideration of individual charges levelled against petitioner has been made but it is quite evident that all the charges levelled against petitioner have been proved on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report. There does not appear to be any independent application of mind by the inquiry officer with regard to the findings recorded by preliminary inquiry report or the documents which were relied upon in such preliminary inquiry report and their use with regard to the charges levelled against petitioner. There also does not appear to be any oral inquiry having been held in the inquiry proceedings. 19. While learned counsel for opposite party No.3 has specifically raised a plea that all the relevant documents relied upon by the inquiry officer pertained to normal course of business activities and therefore would not require to be proved by oral evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court, once the proceedings were WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 7 being conducted for imposition of a major penalty, such as dismissal which in fact was imposed upon petitioner, it was the bounden duty of the inquiry officer to have adverted to the relevant documents individually and to have seen their applicability with regard to charges levelled against petitioner. Merely following the preliminary inquiry report and indicating its applicability with regard to charges levelled against petitioner, is insufficient adherence of the procedure required to be followed in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, which specifically are as follows:- "7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - Before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner : (i) The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. (ii)The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge- sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the disciplinary authority :Provided that where the appointing authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary; as the case may be, of the concerned department. (iii)The charges framed shall be so WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 8 precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet. (iv)The charged Government servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross- examine any witness mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex parte. (v)The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation: WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 9 Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer. (vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission. (vii) Where the charged Government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence : Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. (viii)The Inquiry Officer may summon any witness to give evidence or require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976. WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 10 (ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges. (x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant. (xi) The disciplinary authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by an order appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (xii) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner of the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits : Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases : WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 11 (i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules." 20. Even though the documents relied upon may have been in the normal course of business but in the present facts and circumstances of the case, since charges levelled pertained to interpolation of cheques and their deposit in a fraudulent manner, the inquiry officer was bound to have recorded at least an iota of finding by indicating independent application of mind to the aforesaid aspect and to draw of conclusion as to how petitioner was responsible for the same. Unfortunately, this procedure has not been adopted in the inquiry proceedings. 21. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh (supra) has adverted to a similar issue in the following manner:- “12. Learned counsel for the State was ad idem to the submissions of the appellant's counsel that no witness whatsoever was examined during the course of the inquiry WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 12 proceedings. On a minute appraisal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that other than referring to the documents pursuant to the so-called irregular transactions constituting the basis of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer failed to record the evidence of even a single witness in order to establish the charges against the appellant. 13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others; (2009)2 SCC 570 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another; (2013)4 SCC 301. 14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under: - "14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 13 on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 14 otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. 19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case (2006) 4 SCC, 713: 2006 SCC (L&S) 840) had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record.…" (emphasis supplied) 15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010)2 SCC 772 wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 15 charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) are as follows: "28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents . 33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 16 charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet." (emphasis supplied) 16. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra), this Court held that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given. Relevant extract thereof reads as under: - "42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992], held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 17 It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held. 43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shahv. Union of India (AIR 1964 SC 1854) a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under: (AIR p. 1862, para 12) "12. ………..There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 18 of the three major punishments indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that article (, nor prior to that]." 44. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 299: 1997 SCC (L&S) 152: AIR 1997 SC 2148] this Court dealt with the issue and held as under: "... a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of (sic) nor, remains of no consequence." 45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 19 in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross- examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice. (emphasis supplied) 17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Nirmala J. Jhala (supra), we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.“ 22. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgment and those cited therein, it is thus evident that in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, even if the inquiry proceedings are being held ex parte, it is the duty of inquiry officer to reach a subjective satisfaction with regard to involvement of the delinquent employee pertaining to charges levelled against him. 23. Learned counsel for opposite party No.3 however has also relied upon Paragraph 7 of the WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 20 judgment to submit that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 clearly stipulates that where the government servant denies charge, then only the inquiry officer is required to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and to record their oral evidence in the presence of charged government servant but since in the present case, the charge has not been denied by petitioner, there was no occasion for the inquiry officer to have required attendance of witnesses. 24. So far as the aforesaid proposition is concerned, it is evident that the same would apply where witnesses are required to corroborate documents indicated in the charge-sheet. 25. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said proposition would be inapplicable where the entire basis of charges being found established against a delinquent employee is based only on the preliminary inquiry report and it is in such circumstances that oral inquiry would be required to be held to prove charges. 26. It is to be borne in mind that the inquiry proceedings, particularly pertaining to imposition of a major penalty are in the nature of quasi-judicial exercise of power in order to ascertain veracity of allegations and charges levelled against a delinquent employee and for such purpose, a fair procedure is required to be adopted. 27. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the procedure indicated in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 as examined in the judgment rendered in the case of Satyendra Singh (supra) for sought of enunciation of law. WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 21 28. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 12.04.2024, 26.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to proceed afresh with the inquiry from the stage of issuance of charge-sheet. The opposite parties are required to conduct inquiry proceedings expeditiously and conclude the same preferably within a period of three months from the last date when petitioner is required to submit a reply to the charges levelled against him. 29. The aforesaid time frame shall be subject to cooperation by petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. 30. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. 31. In view of aforesaid discussion, the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this petition is hereby rejected. With regard to other preliminary objections, it shall be open to the petitioner to take such objections in the suit proceedings, which have already instituted. December 8, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 5379 of 2024 22 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench