HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1130 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. 1. Heard Shri Narendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant and Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Challenge has been raised to the order of the learned single judge dated 02.09.2026 in Ramesh Kumar Srivastava vs D.M. Sonebhadra & Ors., 2026:AHC:183867. By that order, the learned single judge has disposed of the writ petition and restored the disciplinary proceedings to the stage of submission of enquiry report. 3. Learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant would submit, in the present case, there is absolutely no enquiry conducted. No evidence was led to prove the charge. Therefore, the whole enquiry proceeding was vitiated. The learned single judge has erred in saving such a defective enquiry proceeding and the learned single judge has further erred in not quashing the entire domestic enquiry proceeding. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would submit, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all grounds before the disciplinary authority. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the matter is very old. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Clerk at District Collectorate, Sonbhadra. He was placed under suspension on 22.10.1996 and a charge- Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Narendra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava .....Appellant(s) District Magistrate And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) sheet was served on him, the next day, on 23.10.1996. The relevant documents had not been supplied to him. Hence, the petitioner moved an application on 28.11.1996 seeking supply of relevant documents. Since such copies may not have been supplied, the petitioner made further representations on 06.02.1997 and 19.02.1997, reiterating his demand to be supplied documents. 6. In such circumstances, the petitioner was aggrieved by the enquiry report dated 28.02.1997 submitted by the Enquiry Officer - without conducting any enquiry. It led to the punishment order dated 05.03.1997 whereby he was awarded punishment of reversion to his basic pay with stoppage of three annual increments, with cumulative effect. 7. Undeniably, even though the petitioner/appellant may not have responded to the notice that may have been issued by the Enquiry Officer and even though the petitioner may have therefore not participated in the domestic enquiry proceeding, he may have only exposed himself to be proceeded ex-parte. However, in an ex-parte domestic enquiry, the burden to bring home the charge may remained on the management. That essential requirement of law may remain unaltered and unaffected by the errant conduct shown by the petitioner/appellant/delinquent employee in the conduct of the domestic enquiry. 8. Consequentially, the burden that was otherwise cast on the management to lead evidence - documentary and/or oral, to prove the charge would have to be performed by the management by leading evidence. The management failed to discharge its burden by concluding the enquiry proceeding. By reaching adverse conclusion as to the charge, against the petitioner/appellant/delinquent officer, the Enquiry Officer a fundamental and incurable error in the departmental enquiry proceeding. Suffice to note, there is no admission of guilt made by the petitioner/appellant. 9. Seen in that light, the decision of the coordinate bench in Janardan Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. & Ors., Special Appeal No. 631 of 2007 decided on 20.02.2020, squarely covers the issue. In that case as well, facts were noted as below: SPLA No. 1130 of 2026 2 "7. Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who issued notice to appellant but he did not submit reply to the charge-sheet. Thereupon Enquiry Officer straightaway submitted Enquiry Report dated 15.08.1986 holding charges proved and then punishment order was passed. Enquiry Report shows that it has discussed that opportunity was given to appellant to submit reply to the charge-sheet but he did not cooperate in enquiry by submitting reply to the charge-sheet and, therefore, Enquiry Officer proceeded by treating charges self proved. It is argued that this procedure adopted by Enquiry Officer is not consistent with law laid down in number of authorities. 8. Now the sole question up for consideration is "whether non holding of oral inquiry before imposing major penalty of removal would vitiate the entire proceeding including order of punishment." 10. Considering the entire gamut of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Meenglas Tea Estate vs The workmen, AIR (1963) SC 1719, State of U.P. vs C.S. Sharma, AIR (1968) SC 158, Punjab National Bank vs A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR (1960) SC 160 and S.C. Girotra vs United Commercial Bank, (1995) Supp. (3) SCC 212, a coordinate bench also took note of the earlier decisions of this Court and reached a conclusion that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated. Accordingly, the penalty order was quashed. 11. In the present case as well, the same result must follow. The learned single judge has erred in principle in not taking note of the fact that in absence of any oral enquiry and in absence of any evidence received by the Enquiry Officer, no conclusion of guilt may have been reached, in complete absence of admission by the petitioner/appellant, as to the charge levelled against him. Too much time has passed to now allow for fresh enquiry to arise. In fact, it may not be possible to allow any enquiry to arise at this late stage, almost 30 years after the occurrence. 12. Accordingly, the present intra-Court appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single judge is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The penalty order is set aside. Let all consequential benefits arising to the petitioner-appellant be computed and paid out, within three SPLA No. 1130 of 2026 3 months from today. 13. Let a copy of this order be placed on the record of Writ - A No. 16404 of 1997. 14. No order as to costs. October 1, 2026 Prakhar SPLA No. 1130 of 2026 4 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad