The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary authority must provide valid reasons for disagreeing with an inquiry report and must comply with Rule 9(1) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 when ordering a re-inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neel Kamal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer vide letter dated 23.7.2019 has been rejected by the disciplinary authority in a mechanical and routine manner without assigning any valid or cogent reasons and a re-inquiry for the 4th time in a span of 10 years, have been ordered against the petitioner.

3. On the first date of admission this Court passed order dated 21.11.2019 as under:

“Heard Sri Upendra Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Neel Kamal Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

Under challenge is order dated 14.10.2019 whereby inquiry report dated 23.07.2019 submitted in third inquiry proceedings against petitioner have been disbelieved and directions have been issued for holding a fresh inquiry with regard to the same.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier two inquiries were initiated against petitioner with regard to similar charges. In the first inquiry, petitioner had been exonerated from charges levelled against him on the ground that charges could not be proved against him although recommendation was made by inquiry officer for issuance of fresh charge-sheet to petitioner specifically indicating charges against him. In pursuance of same, a second charge-sheet was issued to petitioner on 08.06.2010 containing similar charges. In the said proceedings, inquiry report were submitted on 18.01.2011 where after punishment order was passed on 19.06.2013.

Said punishment order was challenged by petitioner before the U.P. Public State Service Tribunal in which punishment was quashed granting liberty to authorities for initiating fresh inquiry proceedings against petitioner which was concluded within a period of four months. However it has been submitted that re-inquiry was directed after expiry of period of four months. However the aforesaid inquiry was permitted to be concluded within a further period of three months in petition filed by petitioner.

It has been submitted that in pursuance thereof, third inquiry proceedings on the basis of same charge-sheet ensued and in which the inquiry report dated 23.07.2019 has been submitted which has been rejected by means of order dated 14.10.2019 which is impugned herein.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order ordering re-inquiry has been passed without indicating any reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report and in violation of Rule 9(1) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 and various judgments on the said aspect as such it has been submitted that the order impugned is clearly non-speaking in nature and indicates non-application of mind by authority concerned.

Learned State Counsel seeks time to obtain instructions in this matter.

Prima-facie, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner require consideration since a perusal of order impugned does not indicate any reasons or disagreement being recorded by the authority concerned.

As such opposite parties are granted three days' time to seek instructions.

List on 28.11.2019 as a fresh case in the additional cause list. On the said date, learned State Counsel shall also produce the inquiry report submitted vide letter dated 23.07.2019.”

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order Sri Ran Vijay Singh has produced the copy of the letter dated 27.11.2019 preferred by Special Secretary of the Department addressed to the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow enclosing therewith the copy of the inquiry report dated 18.7.2018 submitted on 23.7.2019, the same are taken on record. T