Point of Law: It is not merely the duty of the inquiry officer to comply with the Rule 7 but also the duty of the punishing authority, while passing order of punishment, to ensure that the inquiry is conducted as per the procedure prescribed.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging his punishment order dated 11.04.2022 passed by Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Secretariat Administration Department, Lucknow (respondent no. 2).

2. By the impugned order, petitioner is given a punishment of censure entry and reversion to the post of Section Officer from the post of Under-Secretary.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the inquiry was conducted by the Special Secretary, Medical Education Services, U.P. who submitted her report on 25.08.2021. He submits that in the present case, the inquiry officer was never provided the documents to which she had relied upon in the inquiry. The said documents were summoned by the inquiry officer during the conduct of the inquiry and were also perused by her. However, neither copy of the said documents were provided to the petitioner nor the same were permitted to be perused by the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that a bare perusal of the report shows that the inquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1999’) as no date, time and place was fixed in the inquiry.

4. I have perused the inquiry report as well as the impugned punishment order. A bare perusal of the same shows that the inquiry officer has, in fact, not merely failed to follow the procedure provided by Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 but has also placed burden upon the delinquent employee to prove that he is not guilty. In the first line of discussion, the inquiry officer states, that, delinquent employee through his reply to the charge-sheet/statements could not submit any evidence which would prove that the delinquent employee is wrongly charged.

5. In the present case, the Additional Chief Secretary was summoned along with the record. Today he is present in Court along with the record and with his assistance as well as assistance of the counsels for parties, record is perused. Learned Standing Counsel also could not show from the record of the case that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 is followed in conducting the inquiry and any date, time and place was fixed for evidence or evidence relied upon/summoned was provided to the petitioner.

6. Though the matter is simple as it is to be remanded back, but, in large number of cases filed before this Court, it is found that the inquiry with regard to major penalty is conducted in violation of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999. The present case is a glaring example of the same. Inquiry officer is a Special Secretary and the punishing authority is a Principal Secretary. Still a glaring error is committed in conduct of the inquiry by the inquiry officer and in failure to check the same by the punishing authority before punishment order was issued. It is not merely the duty of the inquiry officer to comply with the Rule 7 but also the duty of the punishing authority, while passing order of punishment, to ensure that the inquiry is conducted as per the procedure prescribed.

7. Such mistakes in large numbers are occurring for quite some time now in the State. The State Government as far back as on 22.04.2015 issued a detailed government order explaining at length the manner in which inquiry with regard to minor punishment or major punishment should be conducted. The government order explains at length what is already prescribed in Rule 7. When the inquiries were still not being conducted in proper manner, again under order of this Court dated 13.01.2021 passed in Writ Appeal No. 12110 of 2020; State of U.P. and Others vs. Vijay Anand Tiwari, a Government Order dated 10.02.2021 was issued by the State Government for compliance of Rule 7. Despite two aforesaid government orders, the inquiries are still not conducted in a proper manner. It is sad to note that the both the aforesaid government orders are also