The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a 'Regular Enquiry' in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the procedural obligations and the need for a fair and thorough inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashutosh Singh and Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner/State of U.P. has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.11.2017 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in claim petition no. 399 of 2014 (Deepak Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another).

3. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Deepak Kumar, while he was working on the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Urai, and in the said proceedings the minor punishment was awarded vide order dated 25.02.2014. The relevant portion of the same is quoted as under:-

Jh nhid dqekj ds fo:) fl) nksuksa vkjksiksa ,oa buds xEHkhj nqjkpj.k dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, 'kklu }kjk fofu'r n.M ij yksd lsok vk;ksx m0iz0 bykgkckn dh lgefr muds i= la[;k&87@27@,0Mh0lh0@lsok&5@2013&2014] fnukad 12-02-2014 }kjk izkIr gqbZA mDr lgefr ds dze esa Jh nhid dqekj] vflLVsUV dfe'uj ds fuyEcu dks lekIr djrs gq, muds fo:) dk;kZy;&Kki fnukad 25-01-2012 }kjk lafLFkr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh esa fuEufyf[kr n.M nsrs gq, vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ,rn~}kjk lekIr dh tkrh gSA %&

¼1½ Jh nhid dqekj dks ifjfufUnr fd;k tkrk gSA

¼2½ Jh nhid dqekj dh nks osruo`f) 02 o"kksZa ds fy;s vLFkk;h :i ls jksdh tk;A

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2014, Deepak Kumar/respondent no. 1 filed a claim petition no. 399 of 2014 (Deepak Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another) before State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, challenging the punishment order dated 25.02.2014. The main grounds of challenging the order of punishment dated 25.02.2014 before the Tribunal in Claim Petition were to the effect that:-

(i) Enquiry is in violation of Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short “Rules of 1999”).

(ii) No oral enquiry was conducted.

(iii) No date, time and place was fixed in the enquiry, proceedings for recording the statements.

(iv) During enquiry charges and documents were not proved by examining the witnesses.

5. After exchange of pleadings between the parties, State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow by means of order dated 01.11.2017 allowed the claim petition with the findings that in the present case no oral inquiry has been held, as required.

6. It reveals from the record that against Deepak Kumar/respondent no. 2 an FIR was lodged on 29.09.2010 under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. and he was arrested and on account of the same he was suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated vide charge-sheet dated 06.02.2012, under Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 and thereafter Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte and submitted his report dated 18.09.2012. The enquiry report dated 18.09.2012 was served through show cause notice dated 08.11.2012, to which the respondent No. 1 submitted his reply dated 04.12.2012 and thereafter the Order of punishment was passed by disciplinary authority on 25.02.2014.

7. Further, from the record it is evident that in criminal case witnesses, including victim, were hostile and as per recital of Order dated 01.11.2017 the respondent no. 1 has been acquitted.

8. It is an admitted fact that, the Tribunal, while setting aside the impugned punishment order dated 25.02.2014 passed by punishing authority, has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. 2003 (21) LCD 610.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order dated 01.11.2017 passed by the Tribunal submitted that the respondent did not participated in the enquiry and Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte and ultimately minor punishment has been awarded and as such there is no irregularity in the enquiry.

10. In view of the above, the first question which requires consideration in the case is that “what procedure should be adopted if charge-sheet is given for major punishment and u