Point of Law - It is a settled legal proposition that, once the Court set asides an order of punishment on the ground, that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not severely preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rajat Rajan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the State-respondent.

2. Petitioner, a medical officer, working with the State-respondents was served upon a charge sheet dated 19.09.2012, levelling imputation of misconduct on two charges alleging to have caused pecuniary loss to the State. Prior to issue of the charge sheet, petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.06.2012. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is mandated under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'Rules 1999'). The petitioner responded by filing reply on 24.08.2015, denying the charges and further demanded documents which were not supplied to him.

3. It appears that the documents were in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). The relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner on 02.09.2015, calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply. Petitioner submitted his reply on 16.09.2015 and further submitted a list of witnesses he proposed to examine, which included 100-150 witnesses as noted in the enquiry report. The enquiry officer declined to examine the officers as in the opinion of the enquiry officer they were not relevant to the charge or for raising defence by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner was called upon for personal hearing. Petitioner appeared on 22.09.2015, before the enquiry officer and the personal hearing was recorded in question-answer format. Thereafter, vide show cause notice dated 05.11.2015, petitioner came to be served with an enquiry report calling upon him to file objections, if any. Petitioner responded by filing reply to the show cause notice on 21.12.2015.

4. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned punishment order dated 13.04.2016, imposing major punishment of reversion from Level-III to Level-II and directing recovery at Rs. 3,36,300/-and censure entry. Thereafter, petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021, from the post of Senior Medical Officer (Level-II).

5. It is informed that petitioner has received pension and post retiral dues.

6. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions:(i) that the procedure as mandated under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999, in particular, Rule 7 (vii), the enquiry officer has not fixed any date, time or place after receiving the reply of the petitioner; (ii) the department did not produce any documentary or oral evidence before the enquiry officer to prove/establish the charges; (iii) the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on the reply submitted by the petitioner and the documents that were supplied to the petitioner for raising his defence. It is not the case of the State-respondent that the department relied upon the very same documents to prove the charge.

7. On specific query, learned counsel for the State-respondent admits that neither presenting officer was appointed, nor, any document noted in the enquiry report or oral evidence was led to prove the charges against the petitioner.

8. The second leg of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at this stage since petitioner has superannuated, it is not open for the State-respondent to de-novo initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in view of the embargo mandated under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. It is urged that the charges pertain to the year 2011 which is beyond four years, further, approval is to be sought from the Hon'ble Governor to initiate disciplinary proceedings since petitioner has retired.

9. In rebuttal, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute on perusal of the enquiry report that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 7 (vii) of the Rules, 1999, has not been followed. The enquiry officer submitted the report after calling upon the petitioner for personal hearing. The hearing was recorded in a question-answer format on the documen