Point of Law: Service Law – Setting aside of punishment imposed justified - Objective of reasons to be recorded under Rule 9(4) mandatory if not recorded is fatal

JUDGMENT :

RAMESH SINHA, J.

1 The Court has convened through Video Conferencing.

2. Heard Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel for the State/petitioners.

3. By means of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 253 of 2018, Neeraj Verma vs. State of U.P. and Others, whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, quashed the order of punishment dated 30.11.2017 and directed that if any service benefits are withheld on account of the punishment order dated 30.11.2017, the claimant/respondent is entitled to get the same, in accordance with law.

4. Shorn off unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that while the claimant/ respondent was working as District Excise Officer, Balrampur, a departmental inquiry against him was instituted under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 vide order dated 09.07.2015 on the ground that he committed various irregularities with regard to the realization of basic license fee, non-deposition of the Challan license fees amounting to Rs. 5,64,250/- till the date of special audit, non-deposition of the challan license fees of 56 shops of countrymade liquor, 08 shops of foreign liquor, 11 beer shops and non-deposition of the security amount of 81 shops of country-made liquor, 14 shops of foreign liquor, 06 beer shops. The Joint Excise Commissioner, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur was appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct the departmental enquiry in the matter of the claimant/respondent.

5. A charge-sheet dated 03.07.2015 was served upon the claimant/respondent, levelling eight charges against him. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the claimant/respondent had submitted his reply dated 21.08.2015 to the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 09.11.2015 to the Disciplinary Authority, exonerating the claimant/respondent from all the charges but the Disciplinary Authority, after examining the enquiry report, disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer and after finding the claimant/respondent responsible for charges no. 6, 7 and 8, issued a show cause notice dated 26.04.2016 to the claimant/respondent. On receipt of the show cause notice dated 26.04.2016, the claimant/ respondent submitted his reply dated 11.05.2016, stating therein that no loss of revenue was caused to the Government instead all efforts were made towards increasing the revenue generated through liquor sale. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 30.11.2017, concluded the disciplinary proceedings by awarding punishment of stoppage of one increment temporarily for a period of one year and also awarded censure entry to the claimant/respondent.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the punishment order dated 30.11.2017, the claimant/respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 253 of 2018. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the claim petition vide order dated 26.12.2019, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, has failed to consider the most relevant fact that there was an admission on the part of the claimant/respondent with regard to the delay in depositing the basic license fees and the security amount of the shops and, therefore, the charge levelled against him vide charges no.6, 7 and 8 were proved on the basis of available material evidences as well as on the own admission of the claimant/respondent and, therefore, the disciplinary authority took dissenting opinion and has given show cause notice to the claimant/ respondent, to which the claimant/respondent submitted his reply. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authorit