IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an oral inquiry is essential in disciplinary proceedings, and its absence violates natural justice, invalidating any resultant punishment.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

In view of the fact that original records relating to disciplinary proceedings in question have been produced before the Court, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel agree that this petition can be heard and decided at this stage itself.

2. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Samarath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

3. Sri Hemant Kumar Rai, the present petitioner, is aggrieved by the punishment order dated 9.10.2023 passed by the State Government inflicting upon him major penalty in the nature of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect and further directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,84,006.00 for the loss caused to the Government.

4. The disciplinary authority hold petitioner guilty for not discharging duties of his office during the relevant period and thus by his act and conduct he violated the conduct rules under U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. Petitioner has been held guilty on the basis of findings returned against him by the enquiry officer in his report dated 24.9.2021.

5. The ground raised for assailing the order is that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, inquiry as required to be held under Rule 7 of the said Rules, was not held as per the procedure prescribed and therefore, the disciplinary authority was not justified in accepting the report holding the petitioner guilty for the findings so returned and imposing major penalty.

6. It is argued that the oral enquiry as contemplated under rule 7 of 1999 Rules by recording statement of petitioner as a delinquent employee as well as that of the departmental witnesses had not taken place and therefore, the enquiry stood vitiated in law in the light of settled legal proposition relating to departmental enquiry in the matters of major penalty.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument has relied the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ADJ 58 and submits that when the enquiry itself is not sustainable the punishment order based upon such enquiry is equally not sustainable and is liable to go.

8. Per contra it is argued by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner had been accorded proper opportunity to appear before the enquiry officer to submit reply and face enquiry but the petitioner himself chose to only submit reply and he having not made any request for oral enquiry, it would be taken that the accused acquiesced to the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer. It is further argued that the petitioner has been given proper show-cause notice to which he had given reply and disciplinary authority imposed penalty after having considered his reply and so now petitioner cannot complain of not being afforded proper opportunity to defend his case.

9. In compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court dated 22.11.2023 original records have been produced before the Court and have been examined by the Court.

10. Before coming to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to certain crucial fact aspects involved in the matter of departmental enquiry qua the case in hand.

11. Initially petitioner while working as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Gorakhpur was served with a charge-sheet of embezzlement of certain money by exercising power beyond the authority vested in him which resulted in the loss of public money and thus, petitioner was charged with misconduct under the U.P. Conduct Rules, 1956. This charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25.6.2018 to which he did submit reply but the entire departmental enquiry was held ex parte in the sense that petitioner was not served with any notice to appear before th