IMPORTANT POINT
Non-adherence to the procedure stipulated in the Rules of 1999 for the conduct of departmental enquiry can lead to the setting aside of the punishment order, and the court may direct reinstatement for the purposes of conducting a fresh enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

In Ref: Delay Condonation Application

1. Reasons for delay in filing the special appeal have been satisfactorily explained. Delay Condonation Application is consequently allowed.

2. Office is directed to treat the appeal as having been filed within time. Regular Number would be allotted to the appeal.

Order on Appeal

1. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.3.2023 as corrected on 11.04.2023, whereby the punishment order dated 13.07.2020 against the petitioner has been set aside. Learned Single Judge has returned a finding that the procedure required to be followed for conduct of departmental enquiry i.e. U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been adhered to. The enquiry report has been perused by learned Single Judge and it is recorded that after considering petitioner's reply no oral or documentary evidence has been produced or taken note of, nor any such evidence has been proved. Learned Single Judge therefore has arrived at the conclusion that order of dismissal based upon such defective enquiry held in violation of the Rules of 1999 cannot be sustained. An opportunity has been given to the appellants to proceed against the petitioner, by holding a fresh enquiry, in accordance with applicable Rules. A further direction has been issued to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The judgment has been corrected later and the petitioner has been held entitled to arrears of salary also in addition to the subsistence amount.

3. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State contends that the finding of the Writ Court with regard to non adherence to the procedure stipulated in Rule 7 of 1999 Rules is unsustainable inasmuch as enquiry has been conducted strictly as per law. It is also argued that since the Writ Court has granted liberty to the employer to hold a fresh enquiry. Therefore, the direction to release arrears of salary is impermissible.

4. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others, (1993) 4 SCC 727. It is urged that in the event punishment order was interfered with on the ground that procedure for enquiry has not been followed, the limited relief that could have been granted was to allow reinstatement for the purposes of holding of enquiry and option ought to have been given to place the employee under suspension for the purposes of holding of enquiry. Submission is that the course suggested by the Writ Court is completely at variance with the law laid down in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra), and therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

5. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that the liberty granted by the Writ Court vide order dated 22.3.2023 has not been availed by the employer and in such circumstances this Court ought not to interfere in the order. It is further submitted that period of three months was sufficient to hold a fresh enquiry. It is also contended that the direction to release financial benefits is in accordance with law. It is also argued that the charges against the respondent petitioner are otherwise not serious enough so as to warrant any major punishment.

6. We have heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

7. So far as the holding of departmental enquiry against the respondents is concerned, we find from a perusal of the enquiry report that after noticing