Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Mining Inspector in 1993 and promoted to Mining Officer in 1998
Source reference: p. 1In 2015, while posted in Saharanpur, he acted against illegal mining involving one Ranvir Singh
Source reference: p. 2He was transferred to Jalaun in May 2016
Source reference: p. 2On June 30, 2025—the date of his retirement—the respondents issued an order initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
Source reference: p. 2The proceedings alleged that the petitioner forged a recovery notice dated October 22, 2016, related to the 2015 incident
Source reference: p. 3An FIR (No. 587 of 2019) had also been registered regarding these allegations
Source reference: p. 5The petitioner challenged the disciplinary order on grounds of mala fides, inordinate delay of ten years, and factual impossibility, as he was not posted in Saharanpur when the alleged forged notice was issued
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings after an unexplained delay of ten years, on the eve of retirement, is legally sustainable
Source reference: p. 72. Whether the disciplinary authority exercised proper independent application of mind in alleging forgery without a preliminary inquiry or fact-finding exercise
Source reference: p. 6, 8Law Applied
The court primarily applied Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations regarding disciplinary actions
Source reference: p. 3, 6-7The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Amresh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), which established that unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings for known misconduct is grounds for quashing such proceedings, especially at the stage of retirement
Source reference: p. 3, 7It further referenced State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakrishnan, holding that such delays cause inherent prejudice to the employee's ability to defend themselves
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The court found that the alleged incident occurred in 2015/2016, yet proceedings were only initiated in 2025 at the petitioner's retirement, with no satisfactory explanation for the decade-long delay
Source reference: p. 7, 9The Court observed that the disciplinary authority failed to conduct any independent preliminary inquiry or record subjective satisfaction before alleging forgery
Source reference: p. 6, 8Crucially, the court noted it was undisputed that the petitioner was posted in District Jalaun, not Saharanpur, on the date the allegedly forged recovery notice was issued (October 22, 2016), making the charge factually tenuous
Source reference: p. 8The court determined that the State's reliance on a police charge-sheet did not substitute for the disciplinary authority's duty to independently apply its mind to the material facts
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated June 30, 2025
It held that the proceedings were vitiated by inordinate delay and a lack of independent application of mind
Source reference: p. 8-9The court further granted the petitioner liberty to represent his claim for notional promotion to Senior Mining Officer before the competent authority, directing said authority to decide the representation via a reasoned order within three months
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Raj Kumar SangamvsState Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Geology And Mining Lko. And 2 Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in