Ram Swaroop Shukla vs State of U.P. and Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 27948 of 2010
Ram Swaroop Shukla
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Khare, Rakesh Kr. Shukla,
Rakesh Kumar Shukla, Santosh Kumar
Srivastava, Suresh C. Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 39
AFR
Judgement Reserved on 11.02.2026
Judgement Delivered on 27.02.2026

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
1.
Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing of the
order dated 17.12.2009, passed by respondent no.3, whereby the services of the
petitioner herein were terminated and also seeking quashing of the order dated
30.04.2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed by
the respondent no.2.
FACTS
3. The brief facts of the case are the petitioner herein was appointed on the post of
Lekhpal in the year, 1980 and in the year, 2008, he was posted in the area of
Domagor of Tehsil and District- Jhansi. On 04.10.2008, an F.I.R. being Case Crime
No. 686 of 2008 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 477-A and 120B I.P.C. was
registered at the behest of the Revenue Inspector, Shri Buddhi Prakash, making out the
allegations that the petitioner has treated one Brij Kishore as dead and passed a
mutation order in favour of Rajendra Singh and Hari Mohan. In the aforesaid case,
after investigation a final report was submitted on 21.10.2008.

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
2
In the final order it was categorically observed by the Investigation Officer (IO) that
4.
since the said Brij Kishore had left his house in the year, 1988 and has taken Sanyas
and renowned the world, but his sons and relatives continued to search for him
sufficiently for long period upto 1997. When the said Brij Kishore could not be traced
out by them, in the year 1997 his sons and relatives have performed his last rites
treating he is dead and thereafter they have applied for mutation of their names in
place of his father. Since, the entire village has accepted that said Brij Kishore has
died, in such circumstances it is further observed that Village Pradhan has also
certified that he is dead. However, later on in the year, 2006, said Brij Kishore came in
the village in the form of a Sadhu and did not raise any objection with regard to the
mutation of his property in the name of his legal heirs i.e., his sons. Since, the
neighbors of the land belonging to the sons of the said Brij Kishore, wanted to
purchase the land from Hari Mohan etc., which they have refused to sell. Having
regard to this he has made the complaints to the Higher Officials, therefore, it was
concluded that there was no criminality attached to the action taken by the petitioner
herein in passing the mutation order in favor of the legal heirs of the said Brij Kishore,
on the basis of the Death Certificate issued by the Village Pradhan.
Subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid final report, another F.I.R. being Case
5.
Crime No. 2293 of 2008 under Section 420 I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner
herein alleging therein that the petitioner herein had torned the order o o-11 with
प क
regard to the Khata No. 349, whereby an alive person was shown as dead and name of
his heirs were mutated.
6. The criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case was stayed by this Court on a
Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17392 of 2009 filed by the
sons of the said Brij Kishore. Subsequent thereto, vide order dated 11.11.2008, the
petitioner herein was suspended on the allegation that he has torned the order o o-
प क
11- relating to Khata No. 349 of the year, 1359 Fasli, while inspecting the aforesaid
क
file. Thereupon, on 21.03.2009, the inquiry officials has issued the following charge-
sheet against the petitioner herein:
/ ,
कार्यालय नियुक्ति एवं दण्डाधिकारी जिलाधिकारी झाँसी

:1586/ . . - /2004-05 21, 2009
संख्या रा० ऑ ० वि०का० दिनांकः मार्च

आरोप पत्र

,
श्री रामस्वरूप शुक्ला
( ),
लेखपाल निलम्बित

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
3
-
तहसील झॉसी।

-781/ - /2008.09
तत्कालीन उप जिलाधिकारी झॉसी के आदेश संख्या एस०टी० वि०का० दिनाॅक
11.11.2008
द्वारा आपको निलम्बित निमा गया तथा आपके विरूद्ध विभागीय कार्यवाही प्रारम्भ की गई।
:-
आपको निम्नलिखित आरोप से आरोपित किया जाता है
-1
आरोप संध्या
, , ,
आप द्वारा राजस्व अभिलेखालय कलैक्ट्रेट झाँसी में पहुँचकर ग्राम सेरसा तहसील मोंठ जिला झाँसी के खाता
349 1359 o-11-
संख्या की सन् फ० की खतौनी का मुआयना करने के बहाने उसमें से प०क क का आदेश
चोरी से फाड लिया गया । इस प्रकार आप राजस्व अभिलेखों को नष्ट करने के दोषी हैं।
:-
उक्त आरोप की पुष्टि में निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य पठनीय है
(1) 25.9.2008
राजस्व अभिलेखपाल की आख्या दिनॉक
(2) - 25.9.2008.
प्रभारी अधिकारी राजस्व अभिलेखागार की आख्या दिनोंक
(3) 2293/08 420 . . . ।
प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट मु०अ०सं धारा आई पी सी

-2
आरोप संख्या

आप व्दारा आय से अधिक निम्नलिखित सम्पत्ति अर्जित की गई है जिस लिए कोई अनुमति प्राप्त नहीं की गई
है ।
1. 15
कस्वा मऊरानीपुर में गुरसराय रोड पर स्टेशन के सामने कीमती मकान लगभग लाख का व सत्संग
भवन लगभग एक लाख रूपये का बना रखा है।
2. 110 20 ,
झाँसी नगर में लक्ष्मीगेट रोड पर कैलाश रेजीडेन्सी में भवन सं० कोमती लाख रूपये है में निवास
करते हैं जो आप द्वारा क्रय किया गया है किन्तु कोई अनुमति प्राप्त नहीं की गई।
3. 12 20
तीन पुत्रियों की शादी में लाख रूपये व्यय किया है तथा बीघा भूमि है।
4. -
आपके रहन सहन का स्तर आय से अधिक व्यय का है।
:-
उक्त आरोप की पुष्टि में निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य पठनीय हैं
(1) 11.1.2009
निरीक्षक स्थानीय अभिसूचना इकाई की आख्या दिनांक

-3
आरोप सं०
0 790
आप द्वारा बिना किसी आधार के गाँवसभा की मूल्यवान भूमि मौजा नयागाँव की खतौनी फ० के गाटा सं
0.894 5 -6
मि रकवा को श्रेणी बंजर से निरस्त किर श्रेणी रास्ता अंकित करने की आख्या दिनांक
8.12.2003
प्रस्तुत की गई थी जबकि मौके पर किसी प्रकार की सडक नहीं थी और न ही आज सडक है। इस

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
4
प्रकार आप फर्जी आख्या प्रस्तुत कर फजी तौर पर भूमि परिवर्तन की आख्या प्रेषित करने के दोषी हैं।
:-
उक्त आरोप की पुष्टि में निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य पठनीय हैं
(1) 8.12.2003
आख्या दिनोंक की प्रतिलिपि।
(2) 26.2.2009
तहसीलदार झाँसी की आख्या दिनॉक की प्रति।
(2) 17.12.2003
परगनाधिकारी झॉसी के आदेश दिनाँक की प्रतिः।
(3) 04.03.2009
परगनाधिकारी झाँसी के आदेश दिनांक की प्रति।
15
उपरोक्त आरोप पत्र के सम्बन्ध में आप अपना उत्तर दिवस के अन्दर जाँच अधिकारी अथवा उप
जिलाधिकारी झाँसी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करे।
आपसे पुनः अपेक्षा की जाती है कि आप नियत समय पर ही अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत करना सुनिश्चित करें। यति
आपका उत्तरः समय के अन्दर प्राप्त नहीं होता है तो आपके विरूद्ध एक पक्षीय कार्यवाही की जायेगी। यह कि
इस कार्यवाही में यदि किसी से आप जिरह अथवा गबाही अपेक्षित हो तो उसका नाम व पता सहित जिरह की
विषय वस्तु अपने उत्तर में अंकित करें।

( .)
डा०मुत्तु कुमार स्वामी बी
नियुक्ति एवं दण्डाधिकारी
/
उप जिलाधिकारी झाँसी।

पत्रांक एवं दिनाॅक उक्त ।

- ,
प्रतिलिपिः तहसीलदार झॉसी को आरोप पत्र दो प्रतियों में इस आशय से कि एक प्रति आरोपी कर्मचारी पर

तामील कराकर सदिनाॅक पूर्ण हस्ताक्षर प्राप्त कर आवश्यक कार्यवाही करें तथा जाँच आख्या आरोप पत्र का
उत्तर प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त अधोहस्ताक्षरी को समक्ष आर्देशार्थ प्रस्तुत करें।

( .)
डा०मुत्तु कुमार स्वामी बी
नियुक्ति एवं दण्डाधिकारी
/
उप जिलाधिकारी झाँसी।
7. In the aforesaid charge-sheet, the inquiry officer has not proposed any of the
witnesses to be examined in support of the charges.
8. In the reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet as well, the petitioner herein has also not
proposed any of the witnesses to be examined in support of his defense. Though, he

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
5
has submitted the following documents along with his reply dated 23.06.2009:
" :-
संलग्नक
1.
भूमि प्रबंधक समिति डोमागोर प्रस्ताव की छाया प्रति।
2.
श्री कैलाश नारायण गुप्ता दिया गया शपथपत्र।

3.
श्री लक्ष्मीदेवी द्वारा दिया गया शपथ पत्र।
4. . . .
थाना नवाबाद व थाना पूंछ की एफ आई आर की छाया प्रति।
5.
अभिलेखापाल श्री बृजेश श्रीवास्तव व ओमप्रकाश आदि के ब्यानों की छाया प्रति।
6. "
अभिलेखागार में दिया गये प्रश्नोत्तरी की छाया प्रति ।
After submission of the reply by the petitioner herein, Inquiry Officer has
9.
proceeded to examine the charge-sheet, reply submitted by the petitioner and the
documents available on record and on the basis thereof, he has recorded its finding
with regard to all the three charges without giving any opportunity of oral hearing to
the petitioner herein or without examining any witnesses in support of the case of the
department and with regard to the first charge of tearing of the order o o-11 from
प क
the revenue records, it has been found that Charge No.1 has been proved against the
petitioner. Charge No.2 has been found to have been proved partially against the
petitioner and Charge No.3 found to have been proved against the petitioner.
10. In the inquiry report dated 31.10.2009. After receipt of the said inquiry report by
the SDM, the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice dated 10.11.2000
against the petitioner herein along with copy of the inquiry report. Thereupon, the
petitioner herein has submitted a detailed reply on 11.12.2009 to the aforesaid show
cause notice. Thereupon, vide impugned order dated 17.12.2009, the Disciplinary
Authority has terminated the services of the petitioner herein.
11. Against the aforesaid termination order dated 17.12.2009, the petitioner herein has
approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1760 of 2010. The
aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide judgement and order dated 18.01.2010,
directing the petitioner herein to file the statutory appeal within 15 days before the
District Magistrate, Jhansi. Thereupon, the petitioner herein has filed his statutory
appeal on 01.02.2010 before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate vide
impugned order dated 30.04.2010 has considered the submissions made in the appeal
by the appellant herein and thereupon the Appellate Authority has found the Charges
No. 1 and 3 to have been proved against the appellant and Charge No.2 was partially

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
6
proved against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the instant
petition has been filed by the petitioner herein.
SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while concluding the
12.
inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has not followed the procedure as prescribed under Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999, neither the Inquiry
Officer has examined any of the witnesses in support of the documents relied upon by
the petitioner herein nor any opportunity of oral hearing has ever been accorded by the
Inquiry Officer to explain to the charges leveled by the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the
entire inquiry proceeding is vitiated and cannot be relied upon for his dismissal.
It has further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary
13.
Authority has also not taken any independent decision after considering his reply to
the show cause notice and the charges leveled against the petitioner herein. The
Disciplinary Authority has simply relied upon the findings recorded by the Inquiry
Officer and the same has been upheld and the termination order has been passed
against the petitioner herein. Likewise, the Appellate Authority has also not applied its
mind to the facts of the case and has simply relied upon the findings recorded by the
Inquiry Officer and dismissed the appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after submission of reply to
14.
the charge-sheet by the petitioner, it was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to fix a date
and time for oral hearing in the matter, giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner herein before concluding the inquiry proceedings, the same has not been
done in the instant case by Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the entire inquiry proceedings is
vitiated and against the settled principles of natural justice and against the provisions
of 1999 Rules as has been interpreted by various judgments of this Court as well by
the Apex Court.
In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
15.
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, Divl. Forest Officer

v. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin
Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney, (2009) 4 SCC 240 and Satyendra Singh vs. State
arising out of
of U.P. and Another SLP (Civil) No.(2). 29758 of 2018 dated
He has also relied upon the judgements of the Division Benches of this
18.11.2024.
Court in
State of U.P. and Others vs. Mam Chand Tyagi and Another, [2017 (6)
ADJ 723 (DB)(LB)] of Lucknow Bench, Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P. and
Another (Writ A No. 25240 of 2014, judgement dated 14.05.2014) and the
He has further relied upon the judgements of the Coordinate Bench of
judgements.
this Court in
Rajesh Kumar Mall vs. State of U.P. and Another (Writ A No. 1498 of
.
2024 dated 15.02.2024)

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
7
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF STATE
Per contra , learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that
16.
Rule 7(iii) of 1999 Rules provides that while issuing the charge-sheet, it is incumbent
upon the Inquiry Officer to name all the witnesses and also the documents which are
to be relied upon by the Inquiry Officer during the disciplinary proceedings against the
delinquent employee. From the perusal of the charge-sheet, it is apparent that though
certain documents have been mentioned in the charge-sheet, however, the Disciplinary
Authority has not proposed any witnesses to be examined in support of the charges.
Likewise, Rule 7(iv) also provides that delinquent employee is also supposed to
categorically mention the names of the witnesses which he wish to propose to be
examined during inquiry and also the documents to be relied upon by the delinquent
employee. From the perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner herein, it is
apparent that he has not proposed any witnesses to be examined during inquiry
proceedings in support of his version. Though, he has relied upon certain documents
which were annexed along with reply.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that since both
17.
sides have not proposed any witness to to be examined during inquiry proceedings,
therefore, there was no occasion for the Inquiry Officer to examine any of the
witnesses during the inquiry proceedings. Therefore, he was not obliged to fix any
date and time in the instant disciplinary proceedings. Further, 1999 Rules do not
provide that any oral hearing be accorded prior to concluding the disciplinary
proceeding against the delinquent employee. In view thereof, there is no infirmity in
the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer in the instant case. So far as the
disciplinary proceedings as well as the Appellate Authority are concerned, they have
given detailed discussion with regard to the charges leveled and the findings of the
Inquiry Officer as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner herein and
thereupon the Disciplinary Authority having found the charges against the petitioner
having been proved, has passed the order of termination of the petitioner herein.
Likewise, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, the Appellate Authority has
also applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, explanation submitted
by the petitioner herein as well as the material available on record and thereupon has
upheld the termination of the petition by dismissing the appeal. Therefore, there is no
illegality in the entire procedure adopted in the instant case by the respondents.
Accordingly, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State prayed for
dismissal of the instant petition.
ANALYSIS
Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this
18.
Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The facts of the case have
already been noted hereinabove. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
8
take note of the Rule 7 of Rules 1999, which reads as under:
"7. .-Before imposing any major
Procedure for imposing major penalties
penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the
following manner:
i.The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or
appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into
the charges.
ii.The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take
action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be
called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the
disciplinary authority: Provided that where the appointing authority is
Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary
or the Secretary; as the case may be, of the concerned department.
iii.The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient
indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and
circumstances against him.
The proposed documentary evidence and the
name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral
.
evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet
iv.The charged Government servant shall be required to put in a written
statement of his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be
less than 15 days from the date of issue of charge-sheet
and to state
whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the
charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his
defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or
statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he
file the written
has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the
inquiry ex parte.
v.The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidence
mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any, shall
be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered
post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-
sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be
served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation:
Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of
furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government servant
shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer.

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
9
vi.Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the
charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary
authority on the basis of such admission.
vii.
Where the charged Government servant denies the charges, the
to call the
Inquiry Officer shall proceed witnesses proposed in the
and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged
charge-sheet
Government servant who shall be given
opportunity to cross-examine
. After recording the aforesaid evidence which the charged
such witnesses
Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his
defence:
Provided that the Inquiry Officer for reasons to be recorded in
may
writing .
refuse to call a witness
viii.The Inquiry Officer to give evidence or
may summon any witness
require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with
the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement
of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976.
ix.The Inquiry Officer
may ask any question he pleases, at any time of
any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or
to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges.
x.Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date
fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service
of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer
shall proceed with the inquiry . In such a case the Inquiry Officer
ex parte
shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in
absence of the charged Government servant.
xi.The disciplinary authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by
an order appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner,to be
known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support
of the charge.
xii.The Government servant may take the assistance of any other
Government servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a
legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed
by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner of the disciplinary
authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits:
Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases:

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
10
(i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of
conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an
inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or
(iii)Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of
the State, it is expedient to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in
these rules."
So far as the judgment in (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court
19. Roop Singh Negi
has relied upon the general principle to be applied in the disciplinary proceedings in
the cases where there are no specific rules in this regard. In (supra),
Roop Singh Negi
the Apex Court has observed as under:
"14. 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
. The
into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties
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.
23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the
appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed
by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have
been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made
by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge
passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not
have been taken into consideration.
The materials brought on record
pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be
. The provisions
arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible
of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding
but the . As the report of the enquiry
principles of natural justice are
officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures,
the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the
enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion,

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
11
as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be
held to be a substitute for legal proof."
Likewise, in , the
20. Moni Shankar v. Union of India [(2008) 3 SCC 484 : (2008)
Apex Court held as under:
“ 17. The . Although the
departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one
provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding,
principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts
exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider
as to whether
while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent
officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and
. Inference on facts must
irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom
be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles.
The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the
premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken
on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of
burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such
evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been
satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place
on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the
doctrine of proportionality.”
In (supra), the Apex Court though has referred to the 1999 Rules,
21. Satyendra Singh
has observed as under:
"17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the
evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts
of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as
15
expounded by this Court in the cases of and
Roop Singh Negi Nirmala
,
: , we are of the firm view that the inquiry
J. Jhala (2013) 4 SCC 301
proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges
punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the
eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the
department in support of the charges. "
22. In Kaptan Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the
Rule 7 of Rules 1999, has observed as under:
"Even if the delinquent does not demand personal hearing or does not
give the names of witnesses with brief synopsis of points on which he
wishes to examine or cross-examine the witnesses, the Inquiry Officer is
not absolved from fixing a date of enquiry, with intimation to the

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
12
delinquent and if he does not appear on the date fixed to either adjourn
the enquiry to some other date or to proceed exparte, as he deems fit. In
either eventuality, he is required to hold inquiry, if delinquent is
present, in his presence, if he is absent, exparte. If oral evidence is
referred in the charge-sheet, same is required to be recorded/examined,
if not, even then the documentary evidence is required to be examined
in the light of the charges for ascertaining the truth in respect thereof.
The delinquent is also entitled to be intimated the date for oral enquiry,
wherein the Inquiry Officer should confront the delinquent with the
charges and the evidence in support thereof, put relevant queries to
him, elicit and record his replies/response in respect thereof. Such oral
enquiry is necessary as it gives an opportunity, to the delinquent to
explain his conduct and to the Inquiry Officer to have a better
perspective of the controversy, as, it is not always possible to discern the
truth from written replies and documents which may not necessarily
convey the complete truth. Even where the delinquent does not dispute
the veracity of the documentary evidence, oral enquiry is necessary as
"
he may still have an explanation to offer.
"The Rules of 1999 also require the Inquiry Officer to hold an enquiry
into the charges except where the delinquent admits the charges (Rule
7vi), in such an eventuality, he can submit a report straight away. As per
Sub Rule (iv) and (x) of Rule 7 if the delinquent does not file his written
statement or does not appear, the Investigating officer shall proceed
exparte. Where he files the written statement and denies the charges, as in
the instant case, it shall proceed as per Rule 7(vii) and the following sub
rules.
The reference to "documentary evidence" in
Rule 7(iii) and (v) clearly
indicates that the same have to be examined, as aforesaid, on the date to
be fixed for enquiry, whether in the presence of the delinquent or in
absentia (exparte). This requirement though not express is implicit in
the aforesaid rules, as is the requirement of holding an oral enquiry,as
it is a sine qua non for providing reasonable opportunity to defend and
is part of the principles of natural justice under Article 311 and 14 of
"
the Constitution.
In (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed
23. Rajesh Kumar Mall
as under:
"17. It is well settled law that during enquiry proceeding the principle of
natural justice must be followed i.e. the documents relied upon, be
provided to the charged employee, opportunity to adduce the evidence be

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
13
provided, statement of witnesses for establishing the charges be recorded
and opportunity to cross examine the witnesses be provided, whereas in
the present case no such procedure has been followed. The petitioner has
not been given opportunity to adduce the evidence and cross examine the
witnesses and no witnesses has been examined by the enquiry officer in
support of the charges levelled against the petitioner. "
CONCLUSION
Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is apparent that in case if neither in
24.
the charge-sheet nor in the reply submitted by the delinquent employee, any witness
has been proposed, there is no express requirement in the said rules for according any
oral inquiry to the delinquent employee before concluding the inquiry proceedings.
However, in (supra), the Division Bench of this Court while
Kaptan Singh
interpreting the aforesaid Rules, relying upon the general principles of law as held in
(supra) and other judgments relied upon by the Division Bench, has
Roop Singh Negi
interpreted the aforesaid Rules so as to mean that
after submission of the reply by
the delinquent employee or even in the absence of reply by the delinquent
employee to the charge-sheet, it is implicit in the aforesaid Rules, though not
expressed, that there is requirement of holding of an oral inquiry as it is sine qua
non for providing reasonable opportunity to defend and it is part of principles of
.
natural justice under Articles 311 and 14 of the Constitution of India
Admittedly, in the instant case, it is evident from the record as well as and from
25.
the inquiry report itself that after submission of reply to the charge-sheet by the
petitioner herein,
no date and time has ever been fixed for any further hearing in
the instant case by the Inquiry Officer, nor any opportunity of oral hearing to the
. In view of the aforesaid binding precedent in
petitioner has ever been granted
(supra), it is an implicit duty of the Inquiry Officer to afford an
Kaptan Singh
opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before concluding the inquiry
proceedings. Since, such opportunity has never been granted in the instant case to the
petitioner herein, thus, the inquiry report without affording such opportunity of
hearing to the delinquent employee to the petitioner cannot be relied upon for
termination of service of the petitioner herein. Thus, the entire proceedings against the
petitioner is vitiated. In view thereof, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority
as well as by the Appellate Authority are not sustainable in law.
Therefore, the instant writ petition is . The order dated 17.12.2009 passed
26. allowed
by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Appellant
Authority are . Ordinarily, while setting aside the order of termination order,
set-aside
the matter is required to be remitted back for concluding the disciplinary proceedings
from the stage it was vitiated. However, since the petitioner has already attained the
age of superannuation on 09.01.2018, no fruitful purpose would be served in remitting

WRIA No. 27948 of 2010
14
back the matter at this stage, hence, this Court refrains from remitting back the matter
to the Disciplinary Authority.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
February 27, 2026
Shubham Arya
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad