HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 2319 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri P.K. Asthana, learned Standing Counsel and S/Sri R.P. Pandey and Mohnish Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vineet Pandey, learned advocates for respondents. 2. This Court has passed following order on 18.03.2026, however, till date no counter affidavit is filed, therefore, opportunity to file the same is closed :- "It is submitted by Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was Law Officer in Varanasi Development Authority and on frivolous grounds the petitioner has been punished with major penalty of stoppage of two increment with cumulative effect. One of the ground for punishment is that the petitioner has not done proper pairvi at the time of filing of counter affidavit and if the same was informed to the Vice Chairman of the VDA, then the stay order could have been avoided. Learned counsel for respondent-Development Authority was queried as to how the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority could have avoided an order of the Court, if Vice-Chairman could have been informed, learned counsel for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Pandey, Vineet Pandey Suresh Kumar Bharti .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Development Authority seeks time to file counter affidavit. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks. List on 20th April, 2026 in top 30 cases. Till the next date of listing, in the event, any departmental promotion process is initiated, then the petitioner's candidature shall be considered. However, the result shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall not be opened except with the leave of this Court. " 3. It is well settled position of law that principles of natural justice are required in any disciplinary proceedings which has been conducted in present case in terms of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999 wherein Rule-7 provides a detailed procedure to conduct inquiry whereby a major punishment is proposed. Said Rule-7 also includes oral hearing, if necessary and to cross examine witnesses also as well as Disciplinary Authority has to consider the reply of delinquent on the inquiry report. 4. However, in present case, Court finds that impugned order which is passed by Chief Secretary in its initial 13 pages has only considered inquiry report, its outcome and his view and in later part of paragraph 3, the Disciplinary Authority records that a detail reply was filed by the petitioner to inquiry report, however, in paragraph 4, in a very vague manner, without even giving reference to grounds mentioned in reply to inquiry report impugned order of punishment was passed. For reference, paragraph 3 and 4 of impugned order is quoted below :- "3- जाँच अिधकारी/अपर आयुक्त(प्रशासन), वाराणसी मण्डल, वाराणसी के पत्र िदनांक 24.07.2024 द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी गयी जाँच आख्या में अपचारी अिधकारी श्री सुरेश कु मार भारती, िविध अिधकारी, वाराणसी िवकास प्रािधकरण के िवरुद्ध संिस्थत आरोपों एवं अनुपूरक आरोपों में दोष िसद्ध पाये जाने के दृिष्टगत शासन के पत्र िदनांक 20.08.2024 के माध्यम से जाँच आख्या के िवरुद्ध अपना अभ्यावेदन उपलब्ध कराये जाने हेतु िनदेर्िशत िकया गया। तद्क्रम में श्री सुरेश कु मार भारती द्वारा पत्र िदनांक 06.09.2024 के माध्यम से अभ्यावेदन उपलब्ध WRIA No. 2319 of 2026 2 कराते हुए आरोप संख्या-1, 2, 3, 4, व 5 और अनुपूरक आरोप संख्या-1, 2 व 3 को अभ्यावेदन में उिल्लिखत तथ्यों के आलोक में िनरस्त करते हुए िनक्षेिपत िकये जाने का अनुरोध िकया गया। 4- उपरोक्त उिल्लिखत तथ्यों एवं अिभलेखीय साक्ष्यों के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है िक अपचारी अिधकारी द्वारा िविध अिधकारी के रूप में अपने िवभागीय कतर्व्यों एवं दाियत्वों के िनवर्हन एवं उच्चािधकािरयों द्वारा प्रदत्त िदशा-िनदेर्शों के अनुपालन में लापरवाही एवं घोर उदासीनता बरती गयी। उच्चािधकािरयों द्वारा सौंपें गये दाियत्वों का समयान्तगर्त िनवर्हन नहीं िकया गया। अपचारी अिधकारी का अपने अधीनस्थों पर िनयंत्रण नहीं है, जो एक अकु शल एवं उदासीन िनयंत्रक होने का द्योतक है। अपचारी अिधकारी के द्वारा मा० न्यायालय में लंिबत वादों के संबंध में प्रभावी पैरवी/कायर्वाही नहीं िकया गया। िविधक कायोर्ं का सानुरूप संचालन व सम्पादन न कर सकने एवं उत्तर प्रदेश सरकारी सेवक आचरण िनयमावली-1956 में िनिहत प्रावधानों के िवपरीत कृ त्य करने के दृिष्टगत अपचारी अिधकारी को कारण बताओ नोिटस जारी करने के पश्चात भी अपचारी अिधकारी के कृ त्य में कोई सुधार पिरलिक्षत नहीं हुआ एवं इनके द्वारा पुनः गलती की गयी। अपचारी अिधकारी का उक्त कृ त्य उत्तर प्रदेश सरकारी सेवक आचरण िनयमावली-1956 के प्रावधानों के िवपरीत है। इस प्रकार अपचारी अिधकारी के िवरुद्ध अिधरोिपत सभी 05 आरोप एवं 03 अनुपूरक आरोप िसद्ध पाये गये हैं।" 5. In aforesaid circumstances, Court takes note of judgments of Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Saini vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd and others, 2026 INSC 305 as well as Satyendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 3325 wherein it is held repeatedly that Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered specific reply made by petitioner to inquiry report and deal with specific grounds that procedure prescribed under Rules of 1999 was not followed. 6. In view of above, impugned punishment order dated 24.09.2025 is set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned respondent to pass a fresh order after taking note of position of law as referred in Jai Prakash Saini and Satyendra Singh (supras) as well as reply of the petitioner to the inquiry report. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations and directions. April 20, 2026 N. Sinha WRIA No. 2319 of 2026 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad