The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically providing the charged officer with an opportunity to rebut the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings, is essential in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. These proceedings have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of an order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal [herein-after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] whereby Claim Petition No. 642 of 2022 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. At this juncture itself, we may note that by filing Claim Petition No. 642 of 2022 before the Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the Order of Punishment dated 13.07.2021 whereby alongwith a censure entry, stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect was inflicted upon him.

2. Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-authorities. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate has been heard for U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission.

3. Primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner impeaching the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Tribunal, which is under challenge herein, is that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that during the course of disciplinary proceedings drawn against the petitioner which resulted in the punishment order dated 13.07.2021, the provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [here-in-after referred to as ‘1999 Rules’] were not followed inasmuch as before recording his disagreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority did not provide any opportunity of hearing or representing to the petitioner. His submission thus is that the course adopted by the State-authorities in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lav Nigam vs. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. and Another, 2006 SCC (L&S) 1835.

4. He has further argued that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were favourarble to him, however, once the Disciplinary Authority decided to disagree with the said findings, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to have provided the opportunity to the petitioner and by not doing so, the Disciplinary Authority has erred in law and such a course adopted by the Disciplinary Authority runs contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84.

5. He has relied on yet another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. S.C. Parashar, (2006) 3 SCC 167 to impress upon the Court that since the procedure for imposition of major penalty was initiated, it could not have resulted in minor penalty and hence the order of punishment dated 13.07.2021 is vitiated which, however, has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. Sri Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel representing the petitioner has relied upon yet another judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others delivered on 28.03.2018 [Writ Appeal No. 63644 of 2013]. It has, thus, been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Strenuously opposing the prayers made in the writ petition, Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents has argued that the records available before this Court on this writ petition clearly establish that the procedure as given in the 1999 Rules were strictly followed and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner based on the judgments cited by him is erroneous and in fact, the arguments are based on misreading of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lav Nigam (supra) and Kunj Behari Misra (supra). He has further argued that so far as the judgments in the cases of S.C. Parashar (supra) and Suresh Kumar Singh (supra) are concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, they do not have any application. He has