Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58544 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50331 of 2017 Petitioner :- Shiva Kant Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Agarwal,Raj Kamal Singh,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhanshu Srivastava,Sushil Kumar Rao Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. 1. Heard Shri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sushil Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By the impugned order of termination dated 14.09.2016 the petitioner has been terminated from service. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the respondent Corporation on 03.01.1977. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Warehouse Superintendent and superannuated from that post on 30.09.2016. 4. The disciplinary proceedings were taken out against the petitioner by issuance of a chargesheet on 21.07.2014. The gravamen of the charges against the petitioner was that he was responsible for storage loss to the extent of Rs. 25,55,392.91/-. The enquiry report records that the petitioner failed to appear before the enquiry proceedings and did not tender his defence to the charges. On this footing the enquiry officer found that the petitioner admits the charges laid out against him. Accordingly the enquiry report indicted the petitioner of the charges. 5. The disciplinary authority placed exclusive reliance on the enquiry report to pass the impugned order of termination on 14.09.2016. The impugned order holds the petitioner responsible for the storage discrepancies and financial loss, and directs that he was liable to make good the financial losses suffered by the respondent corporation. 6. The enquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority. The enquiry officer is under the obligation of law to independently examine the evidences adduced by the department and return findings thereupon, even if the delinquent employee fails to tender his defence in the enquiry proceedings. Failure of the charged employee to cooperate in the enquiry or absence of his defence version in the enquiry proceedings does not absolve the enquiry officer of the said duty to appraise the departmental evidence and find whether the charges have been brought home against the delinquent official. 7. The discussion has the benefit of authorities. The Supreme Court outlining the position and duties of an enquiry officer in a departmental proceeding in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 has held as under: "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." "When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/ removal from service." (emphasis added) 8. The same view was taken in similar facts in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 where Court said:- "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 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." 9. In the facts of this case there has been a failure of the enquiry officer to accord independent consideration to the departmental evidence in the record. Further specific findings that the departmental evidence in the record is sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty are absent in the enquiry report. The enquiry officer abdicated his legal obligations. The enquiry report is accordingly held to be vitiated. The disciplinary authority erred in law by relying on the enquiry report which was vitiated ab initio. 10. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is in the teeth of law laid down in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) and Roop Singh Negi (supra). 11. The order of termination dated 14.09.2016 is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. It is informed by the learned counsels that there is no provision for initiation of disciplinary proceedings after superannuation. 14. In the facts of this case a direction is issued to the Managing Director, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation to ensure that appropriate provisions for continuance and initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement are incorporated in the service rules in light of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad