Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130807 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9618 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sabiha Sultan @ Sabiha Sultan Saifi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Peeyush Kumar Pathak,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Bishan Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Hare Ram, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Gaurav Bishan, learned counsel for District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging an order, dated 01.07.2025, passed by District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad, vide which penalty of censor entry has been awarded to the petitioner and he has also been displaced from Composite School, Usmangarhi, Rajapur, (Rural), Ghaziabad to Composite School, Inayatpur, Block Rajapur (Rural), District Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 28.12.2005 and was posted in Junior Primary School, Usmangarhi, Rajapur, District Ghaziabad. She was promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School, Usmangarhi, District Ghaziabad. Later Junior Primary School and Upper Primary School were merged and, therefore, the composite institution was brought into existence at Usmangarhi, whereby petitioner was entrusted with the duties of In-charge headmaster by order dated 02.07.2020. While discharging her duties, there was no complaint against the petitioner and she worked up to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, though later on, several complaints were made against the petitioner with nearly the same allegations wherein after inquiry she was completely exonerated. Lastly, an anonymous complaint was made on 29.01.2025, on which a notice was issued to the petitioner, who submitted a reply and she was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.03.2025. The aforesaid suspension order was challenged by means of filing petition being Writ- A No. 5485 of 2025 before this Court, in which the Court by order dated 28.04.2025 directed respondent authorities to conclude the inquiry within four weeks, after receiving reply from the petitioner by 12.05.2025. The respondent no. 4, Inquiry Officer, pursuant to reply given by the petitioner, called her for the purpose of oral hearing on 27.05.2025. The petitioner appeared on the said date and inquiry report was submitted on 29.05.2025. Further, the respondent no. 3, being the Appointing Authority, gave a notice dated 29.05.2025 to the petitioner to submit her explanation, however, the petitioner could not submit her reply to the notice dated 29.05.2025. Again on 02.06.2025 a notice was given to the petitioner for submission of her reply within a period three days. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her reply on 05.06.2025 after which impugned order, dated 01.07.2025 has been passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the inquiry report was never served upon the petitioner. Pointing out the procedural defects under Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999, in short, "Rules of 1999", in consonance of which the inquiry was conducted, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed in an arbitrary manner without adhering to the procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 of Rules of 1999. He further submits that once the inquiry has been started under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999 and the petitioner has been placed under suspension, the inquiry was to be conducted under Rule 7 and, accordingly, the report was to be submitted under Rule 8 of Rules of 1999 and after submission of the inquiry report, the action was to be taken on the inquiry report as per procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1999. According to which, in the case of the petitioner, as per Rule 9(4) of the aforesaid Rules, if the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its finding on all or any of the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall furnish a copy of the inquiry report, if he disagrees with the finding of the Inquiry Officer on any of the charges, after recording his finding thereon for reasons to be recorded and shall require the charged Government servant to submit representation, if she so desires, within a reasonable specified time. After receiving the representation of the charged Government servant, a reasoned order has to be passed imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of Rules of 1999 and the same has to be communicated to the charged Government servant. However, in the present case the order impugned has been passed without taking note of the earlier order passed on 02.12.2024, whereby the petition has been exonerated from all the charges leveled against her and without considering the reply submitted by her. 5. It would be apt to refer an order passed by this Court in a matter on identical facts and circumstances, i.e. order dated 24.07.2025 in Writ-A No. 9632 of 2025 (Dharvendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & others). In the said order, this Court has elaborately dealt with the similar issue. In view of the detailed discussion made in the said order, the order impugned does not require interference. 6. It is imperative to underscore that the solemn purpose of any order is not the pedantic perfection of form, but the faithful administration of justice by adhering to principles of natural justice and application of mind. The adjudicatory process is guided by the substance of justice rather than the superficialities of procedure. 7. The essence of any order lies in its ability to address the core legal and factual controversies, to apply the law with judicious reasoning, and to render an equitable resolution. In the instant matter, the punishment order has comprehensively dealt with the determinative issues, examined the evidence on record, and applied the governing legal principles with due care and deliberation. 8. Mere clerical or peripheral omissions such as inadvertent exclusion of dates or formal particulars do not, in any measure, impinge upon the legitimacy or efficacy of the order impugned, unless it is demonstrated that such omissions have caused prejudice or miscarriage of justice. No such prejudice has been pleaded or established before this Court. 9. Courts are not expected to exhibit technical exactitude in form to the exclusion of justice. The doctrine of substantial compliance applies with full vigour in such circumstances. As long as any order fulfills its constitutional and legal mandate namely, the fair discussion of facts with application of mind incidental lacunae in presentation or form cannot be permitted to defeat the ends of justice. It would be appropriate to mention that "justice is not a slave to format, but a servant of truth." 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that a punishment order cannot be held invalid merely on the ground that it does not specifically mention the details of the show cause notice or the written reply submitted by the petitioner, if the substance of both is duly considered and discussed in the order. Unless there is a manifest procedural irregularity or a clear illegality apparent on the face of the record, such minor omissions would not render the order unsustainable in the eyes of law. 11. In view of above, no interference is called for and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad