Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115945 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9780 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shivendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Kailash Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal from services raising the plea that there has been no independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority as it has acted mechanically upon the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer vide his enquiry report dated 29.05.2025 in which while holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, he also made a recommendation for major penalty in the nature of dismissal from service. 3. It is contended that U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are fully attracted to the respondent-establishment which vide its Rule 14(1) provides for departmental proceedings in the cases against the police officers in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix 1 and the relevant procedures as prescribed under Appendix 1 authorizes the enquiry officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report and initially by means of separate order, the enquiry officer can make a recommendation regarding punishment to be imposed on such charged police officers. Thus the submission is that while the enquiry officer could have made a recommendation but this could have been done by him separately from the enquiry report. He submits that the controversy is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Haneef Khan v. State of U.P. (Service Bench No.314 of 2010) decided on 03.04.2017. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein and submitted that the disciplinary authority though has passed the order of dismissal from service but the show cause notice showed that there was independent application of mind. 5. I have perused the enquiry report dated 29.05.2025 in which I find that vide concluding paragraph of the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has not only held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges but at the same time made recommendation of the punishment for dismissal from service and further observed that this finding would operate only upon the approval of the Commandant. The relevant portion of the enquiry report is reproduced hereunder: "उपररोकक्ताननुसक्तार स्पष्ट हहै ककि आररोपपी ररकक ट आरकपी कशिववेन्द्र किनु मक्तार सससिंह किवे कवरूद्ध प्रचसलित प्रक्तारममम्भिकि जक्ताजाँच व कवम्भिक्तागपीय किक्तायरवक्ताहपी किवे ददौरक्तान अपनवे किथन असिंककित नहहीं किरक्तायवे गयवे हह और न हपी आररोपपत्र किक्ता जवक्ताब प्रस्तनुत ककियक्ता गयक्ता हहै , जबककि आरकपी उक दक्तारक्ता कम्भिन -कम्भिन कतसथययों मम पत्रक्ताचक्तार किकी प्रकत स्वयसिं प्रक्ताप्त किर हस्तक्ताकर बनक्ताकिर अवगत हहआ हहै , कफिर म्भिपी उपमस्थत नहहीं हहआ हहै, इस किक्तारण प्रतपीत हरोतक्ता हहै ककि आररोपपी ररकक ट आरकपी उक किरो अपनवे बचक्ताव पक मम किनु छ नहहीं किहनक्ता हहै। आररोपपी ररकक ट आरकपी कशिववेन्द्र किनु मक्तार सससिंह किवे दक्तारक्ता आररोपपत्र किक्ता जवक्ताब / बयक्तान न दवेनवे तथक्ता कितरव्य पर उपमस्थत न हरोकिर लिगक्तातक्तार मनमक्तानवे तरपीकिवे सवे अननुपमस्थत चलि रहक्ता हहै। अततः आररोपपी ररकक ट आरकपी कशिववेन्द्र किनु मक्तार सससिंह ( पपीएनओ -220570257) पनुत्र शपी सतपीशि किनु मक्तार सससिंह तहैनक्तातपी 26 वहीं वक्ताकहनपी पपी०ए०सपी० गरोरखपनुर व मकलिपतक्ता गक्ताम शिवेरपनुर चमरक्ताह थक्तानक्ता कचलिनुआतक्तालि सजलिक्ता गरोरखपनुर ( उ०प्र० ) कदनक्तासिंकितः 29.07.2022 किकी प्रक्ताततः किक्तालिपीन परवेड गणनक्ता आर०टपी०सपी० 47 वहीं वक्ताकहनपी पपी०ए०सपी०गक्तासजयक्ताबक्ताद सवे अननुपमस्थत हरोकिर अब तकि लिगक्तातक्तार अननुपमस्थत रहनवे किक्ता दरोषपी पक्तातक्ता हहजाँ तथक्ता इनकिवे इस किक त्य किवे सलिए उत्तर प्रदवेशि असधिनस्थ शवेणपी किवे पनुसलिस असधिकिक्ताररययों किकी ( दण्ड और अपपीलि ) कनयमक्तावलिपी 1991 किवे कनयम 14 किवे उपकनयम 01 मम अकम्भिकिसथत प्रककयक्ता किवे अननुसक्तार किक्तायरवक्ताहपी किरतवे हहए कनयम 4 किवे उपकनयम ( १ ) किवे खण्ड ( कि ) किवे उपखण्ड ( एकि ) किवे तहत सवेवक्ता सवे पदच्यनुकत किरनवे किकी ससिंस्तनुकत किरतक्ता हहजाँ। उक फिक्ताइमण्डसिंग सवेनक्तानक्तायकि महरोदय किवे अननुमरोदनरोपरक्तान्त हपी प्रम्भिक्तावपी हरोगपी। ससिंलिग्नकितः मकलि पत्रक्तावलिपी मय अन्य प्रपत्र व आख्यक्ता ( कि०ससिं० : 01 सवे 52 तकि )" (Emphasis added) 6. Upon bare reading of the aforesaid finding part I findthat recommendation for punishment has been made part of the finding as it is a concluding opinion of the enquiry officer and then makes it to be effective only upon approval by the Commandant. The punishment part therefore has been mixed up with the finding leaving no scope, as if, for further discretion by the disciplinary authority. 7. I have also perused the show cause notice and find that notice issued to the petitioner for proposed punishment on the basis of the finding returned without any independent application of mind. It refers to the finding part and then recommended punishment as a proposed punishment. The entire enquiry report is reproduced hereunder: "जब आप वषर 2022 मम 26 वहीं वक्ताकहनपी पपीएसपी, गरोरखपनुर मम ररकिक ट आरकपी किवे पद पर कनयनुक थवे तरो आपकिरो आधिक्तारम्भिकत प्रकशिकण प्रक्ताप्त किरनवे हवेतनु आर०टपी०सपी० 47 वहीं वक्ताकहनपी पपीएसपी गक्तासजयक्ताबक्ताद रवक्तानक्ता ककियक्ता गयक्ता थक्ता। आप आर०टपी०सपी० प्रकशिकण किवे ददौरक्तान कदनक्तासिंकि 29.07.2022 किरो प्रक्ताततः किक्तालिपीन परवेड किकी गणनक्ता सवे कबनक्ता ककिसपी अननुमकत / अवकिक्ताशि किवे अननुपमस्थत हरो गयवे। तत्पश्चक्तात आर०टपी०सपी० पररसर मम खरोजवे जक्तानवे पर नहहीं कमलिवे, आपकिवे मरोबक्ताइलि नसिं0 9415150063 पर आर०टपी०सपी० मवेजर सत्यपक्तालि सससिंह दक्तारक्ता अपनवे मरोबक्ताइलि नसिं0 8279478825 सवे किकॉलि किरनवे पर आप दक्तारक्ता बतक्तायक्ता गयक्ता ककि 'हम तरो घर जक्ता रहवे हहै , हम रक्तास्तवे मम हह , हम नहहीं आयमगवे", किहकिर फिरोन किक्ताट कदयक्ता गयक्ता। आपकिवे अननुपमस्थकत किवे समबन्धि मम सवेनक्तानक्तायकि टक्तास्कि फिरोसर 47 वहीं वक्ताकहनपी पपीएसपी, गक्तासजयक्ताबक्ताद नवे अपनवे पत्र ससिंख्यक्ता प -20/2022 (प्रकशिकक्ता) कदनक्तासिंकि 30.08.2022 दक्तारक्ता अवगत किरक्तातवे हहए आपकिवे कवरुद्ध किक्तायरवक्ताहपी किकी अपवेकक्ता किकी गयपी। प्रकिरण किकी जक्तासिंच सहक्तायकि सवेनक्तानक्तायकि , 26 वहीं वक्ताकहनपी पपीएसपी गरोरखपनुर सवे किरक्ताई गयपी। जक्ताजाँचकितक्तार असधिकिक्तारपी शपी ससिंजय सससिंह सहक्तायकि सवेनक्तानक्तायकि, 26 वहीं, वक्ताकहनपी पपीएसपी गरोरखपनुर दक्तारक्ता किकी गयपी , प्रक्तारममम्भिकि जक्तासिंच आख्यक्ता कदनक्तासिंककित 16.04.2024 सवे अपकिरो दरोषपी पक्तायक्ता गयक्ता, सजसकिवे आधिक्तार पर आदवेशि ससिंख्यक्ता पपीएफि-02/2025 कदनक्तासिंकि 04.01.2025 दक्तारक्ता आपकिवे कवरुद्ध उ०प्र० अधिपीनस्थ शवेणपी किवे पनुसलिस असधिकिक्ताररययों किकी (दण्ड एवसिं अपपीलि) कनयमक्तावलिपी-1991 किवे कनयम 14(1) किवे अन्तगरत कवम्भिक्तागपीय किक्तायरवक्ताहपी शपी ससिंजय नक्ताथ कतवक्तारपी , सहक्तायकि सवेनक्तानक्तायकि 26 वहीं वक्ताकहनपी पपीए सपी गरोरखपनुर किरो आवसिंकटत किकी गयपी। पपीठक्तासपीन असधिकिक्तारपी शपी ससिंजय नक्ताथ कतवक्तारपी, सहक्तायकि सवेनक्तानक्तायकि 26 वहीं वक्ताकहनपी पपीएसपी गरोरखपनुर दक्तारक्ता कवम्भिक्तागपीय किक्तायरवक्ताहपी पकणर किरतवे हहए अपनपी फिक्ताइकडसिंग कदनक्तासिंककित 29.05.2025 किरो प्रवेकषत किकी गयपी, सजसमम आपकिरो प्रचसलित प्रक्तारममम्भिकि जक्तासिंच/कवम्भिक्तागपीय किक्तायरवक्ताहपी किवे ददौरक्तान किथन असिंककित न किरक्तानवे, कवम्भिक्तागपीय किक्तायरवक्ताहपी नवे अररोप पत्र कदनक्तासिंकि 12.12.2024 किरो प्रक्ताप्त किरनवे किवे उपरक्तान्त कनधिक्तारररत समय किवे अन्दर जवक्ताब न दवेनवे तथक्ता कदनक्तासिंकि 29.07.2022 सवे अब तकि लिगक्तातक्तार अननुपमस्थत रहनवे किक्ता दरोषपी पक्तातवे हहए उ०प्र० अधिपीनस्थ शवेणपी किवे पनुसलिस असधिकिक्ताररययों किकी (दण्ड एवसिं अपपीलि) कनयमक्तावलिपी-1991 किवे कनयम 14 किवे उपकनयम 1 मम अकम्भिकिसथत प्रककियक्ता किवे अननुसक्तार किक्तायरवक्ताहपी किरतवे हहए कनयम 4 किवे उपकनयम (1) किवे खण्ड ( कि ) किवे उपखण्ड ( एकि ) किवे तहत सवेवक्ता सवे पदच्यनुत किरनवे किकी ससिंस्तनुकत किकी गयपी हहै , सजसकिवे किक्तारण आप पपीएसपी सवेवक्ता किवे यरोग्य नहहीं हहै। अततः आप इस किक्तारण बतक्ताओ नरोकटस प्रक्ताकप्त किवे 15 कदवस किवे अन्दर अपनक्ता सलिसखत स्पष्टपीकिरण प्रस्तनुत किरम ककि क्ययों न उपररोक किक त्य किवे सलिए आपकिवे कवरुद्ध उ०प्र० अधिपीनस्थ शवेणपी किवे पनुसलिस असधिकिक्ताररययों किकी (दण्ड एवसिं अपपीलि) कनयमक्तावलिपी-1991 किवे कनयम 14 किवे उपकनयम-1 मम अकम्भिकिसथत प्रककयक्ता किवे अननुसक्तार किक्तायरवक्ताहपी किरतवे हहए कनयम किवे उपकनयम (1) किवे खण्ड (कि) किवे उपखण्ड (एकि) किवे तहत सवेवक्ता सवे पदच्यनुत किर कदयक्ता जक्तायवे। यकद आपकिक्ता सलिसखत स्पष्टपीकिरण कनधिक्तारररत अवसधि किवे अन्दर प्रक्ताप्त हरोतक्ता हहै तरो उस पर समयकि रूप सवे कवचक्ताररोपरक्तान्त गनुण-दरोष किवे आधिक्तार पर यथरोकचत कनणरय सलियक्ता जक्तायवेगक्ता। यकद कनधिक्तारररत अवसधि किवे अन्दर स्पष्टपीकिरण प्रक्ताप्त नहहीं हरोतक्ता हहै तरो यह समझक्ता जक्तायवेगक्ता ककि नरोकटस मम असिंककित आररोप आपकिरो स्वपीकिर हह एवसिं आपकिवे स्पष्टपीकिरण किवे अम्भिक्ताव मम अकगम कनणरय लिवे सलियक्ता जक्तायवेगक्ता। अपनवे बचक्ताव मम यकद पत्रक्तावलिपी किक्ता अवलिरोकिन किरनक्ता चक्ताहतवे हहै तरो कनधिक्तारररत अवसधि मम ककिसपी म्भिपी किक्तायर कदवस मम किर सकितवे हहै। इसकिकी अननुमकत आपकिरो प्रदक्तान किकी जक्तातपी हहै। इस किक्तारण बतक्ताओ नरोकटस किवे सक्ताथ उत्पसत्त (फिक्ताइमण्डग) कदनक्तासिंककित 29.05.2025 किकी प्रकत ससिंलिग्न हहै।" (Emphasis added) 8. Thus it is clear that the recommendation of punishment proposed was made part of the show cause notice inviting petitioner's explanation and then finally the order impugned has been passed. The relevant paragraph of the judgment in the case of Padam Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ A No.18246 of 2019, decided on 29.04.2025) reproduced hereunder: "From a bare reading of the provision, it is apparent that disciplinary authority is vested with the power to exercise its discretion to select punishment that is to be imposed and enquiry officer is only required to submit report bringing home the charge. The enquiry officer may make recommendation for a punishment but within a specific separate note whereas in the present case, punishment has been proposed alongwith finding part. Thus in the instant case not only enquiry officer brought home the charge but also made recommendation which was certainly beyond the scope and authority of the enquiry officer as contemplated to be appointed under Rule 14(I), the manner and method in which enquiry report is to be submitted is reflected from the appendix- I. It is clear that enquiry officer is only to bring home charge and submit final report bringing the charge was exonerated the charge officer and it is left to the discretion of the final authority to take action upon report. The decision that have been cited clearly speak of law to the effect that an enquiry officer's domain is only to submit report and not to propose punishment. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "This aspect has already considered in State of Uttranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, MANU/SC/7951/2008: 2008 (8) SCC 236 and Court has held, if in inquiry report, punishment is also recommended by Inquiry Officer, it is a grave illegality for the reason that appropriate punishment is the exclusive jurisdiction of punishing or disciplinary authority and Inquiry Officer's only job is to enquire, whether charge levelled against delinquent employee is proved or not." In view of above, the argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner's conduct was such that he did not deserve any equity before this Court cannot be accepted. Authority is to pass order well within the boundaries of the rules prescribed for and if any authority exceeds his authority so vested in law in passing an order, such an order becomes void ab initio. In such above view of the matter, the enquiry officer's recommendation of the preposed punishment from dismissal of service as well as 'No Work No Pay' cannot be approved of. The report also deserves to be set aside and so also consequential order of dismissal of the petitioner and also the orders passed by the appellate authority and order of authority sitting in revision also deserve to be set aside." 9. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the above legal position nor could cite any judgment to the contrary. 10. Thus writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of punishment dated 23.06.2025 in the nature of dismissal from service is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to get the enquiry report in the matter afresh by appointing enquiry officer other than officer who had previously held, the enquiry. The petitioner shall be participating in the enquiry as per directions of enquiry officer and enquiry report shall be submitted within a maximum period of two months from the date of appointment of enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority, thereafter shall proceed to take appropriate decision in the matter within a further period of one month in compliance of principles of natural justice. The status of the petitioner in the meanwhile shall continue to remain the same as was at the time of passing of order impugned by the disciplinary authority. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad