Back
2023 Supreme(All) 1323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Randhir Singh Duhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A No.6129 of 2018
Decided on : 06-10-2023
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT SERVANT DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES: R.3, R.7
Headnote
(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of fair hearing - A serving officer should be accorded an opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses. Failure in this leads to the invalidation of disciplinary action. (Paras 32-33)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a government servant, contested dismissal from service after a flawed inquiry related to auction processes while serving as Additional District Magistrate. He alleged no culpability in the auction and claimed denial of fair opportunity during the inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal order was set aside due to procedural irregularities, and the inquiry was to be resumed from the stage of charge sheet issue, ensuring adherence to established rules.
Issues: The main issue centered on whether the inquiry followed principles of natural justice, particularly the absence of an oral hearing and proper opportunity for defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that any disciplinary inquiry must allow the accused a fair opportunity to be heard; procedural flaws invalidate the inquiry process.
Result: Writ petition partly allowed; orders of dismissal set aside, and matter remitted for fresh inquiry.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Udayan Nandan, Anuj Srivastava,
For the Respondent: A K Yadav
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. representation by parties in person. (Para 1) |
| 2. background of the writ petitioner's service and allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. review of disciplinary actions. (Para 7 , 8 , 18) |
| 4. procedural fairness requirement. (Para 10 , 25 , 42) |
| 5. defense against procedural violations in inquiry. (Para 11 , 12 , 19) |
| 6. court's observations on compliance with inquiry rules. (Para 21 , 22 , 26) |
| 7. failure to prove charges or conduct fair inquiry. (Para 23 , 24 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. requirements for departmental inquiries. (Para 36) |
| 9. remediation for procedural shortcomings. (Para 43) |
| 10. final judgment and remittance for further inquiry. (Para 44) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Randhir Singh Duhan, the petitioner in person as well as Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. The case of the writ petitioner as worded in the present writ petition is that he had served in Indian Army and participated in operation “Hifazat” in Manipur & Nagaland and operation “Blue Star” in Punjab for which he was awarded with prestigious gallantry award, “Sainya Sewa Medal.” However, owing to disability on medical grounds he was discharged from the Indian Army. The writ petitioner further claims to be possessed of Degree of Masters of Arts in English, Political Science, Defence Studies as well as B.Ed., Ph.D, PG Diploma in Human Rights and Mass Communication followed by LL.B and LL.M from reputed University. Post discharge from Indian Army, the writ petitioner claims to have joined U.P. Civil Services (PCS, Executive Branch) and was assigned the work of establishing newly created Districts, Rudrapur (Uttaranchal), Gautam Buddh Nagar (NOIDA), Shamli Tehsil Modi Nagar and Shikarpur. The writ petitioner further claims to have executed projects of construction of National Highway from Muzaffarnagar to Haridwar, Dedicated Freight Railway Corridor from Muzaffarnagar to Haryana Border, Power Grid Station and GAIL Pipeline Project in Western U.P.
3. While the writ petitioner was posted as Additional District Magistrate, Prabuddhnagar, now known as Shamli, he was assigned additional charge of Assistant Custodian under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 by the orders of the Competent Authority so specified therein. With relation to auctioning of 7 Khasras admeasuring 27.112 hectares out of 11 Khasras admeasuring 27.819 hectares situate at Village Bidauli Tehsil Karana, District Prabuddhnagar, a complaint was lodged by one of the resident of Village Bdauli, Tehsil Karana, District Prabuddhnagar (at present Shamli). An inquiry was conducted under the orders of Commissioner Shaharanpur through a joint team of Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and Additional Commissioner (Administration) who tendered a inquiry report on 01.05.2012 noticing irregularities in conduction of auction of the evacuee property.
4. As per the writ petitioner, despite the fact that there was no allegation pin pointed against the writ petitioner in the capacity of Additional District Magistrate/Assistant Custodian under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the Secretary/Commissioner, Board of Revenue issued a fresh direction to the District Magistrate, Shamli to hold a fresh inquiry regarding the auction proceedings. The District Magistrate, Shamli by virtue of a communication dated 16.05.2013 addressed to the Commissioner, Shaharanpur Region, Shaharanpur apprised him that already an inquiry had been conducted on 01.05.2012, thus, there is no occasion to conduct fresh inquiry in the matter. Thereafter, the Commissioner and the Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow by virtue of the letter dated 12.06.2014 issued a direction to District Magistrate, Shamli to submit report along with the recommendations with regard to the guilty officers/employees after fixing their responsibilities in the matter of auction of the land of 7 Khasras admeasuring 27.112 hectares out
