IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings are void if conducted by the same authority issuing the charge sheet, violating principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. A challenge has been made to the appellate order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the opposite party no. 2- Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla in his capacity as Secretary Election Anubhag, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

3. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that while serving on the post of Senior Assistant in the Office of District Relation Officer/District Magistrate, Amethi departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on 01.09.2017. The Sub Divisional Officer, Gauriganj, District Amethi was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer was, in the meanwhile, transferred and on 11.6.2018, the Deputy District Election Officer, Gauriganj was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Deputy District Election Officer, Gauriganj also could not conclude the enquiry proceedings and he was replaced by the then Sub Divisional Officer, Gauriganj. A charge sheet was submitted on 29.6.2018 and the same was handed over to the petitioner on 24.7.2018. According to the petitioner, the charge-sheet did not contain any documents as mentioned therein and, accordingly, he had requested the respondents to supply all the documents, which were necessary in support of the charges levelled in the charge sheet.

4. The petitioner had replied to the charge sheet on 13.3.2020 denying the allegations levelled against him and the Enquiry Officer concluded enquiry on 1.12.2020 and submitted it to the Chief Election Officer, Lucknow. The petitioner was given a show cause notice containing a copy of the enquiry report on 5.1.2021. In his reply, the petitioner has stated that entire enquiry proceedings were conducted dehors the provisions of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules 1999), inasmuch as provisions of Rule 7 were also not followed. The disciplinary authority rejected the reply of the petitioner and passed an order for reduction in rank to the lowest pay of his original post of Junior Assistant and imposed recovery of Rs. 6,59,487/- from his salary as penalty. Apart from the above, the difference in the salary was also forfeited pertaining to the period, the petitioner was kept under suspension during the disciplinary proceedings.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 24.6.2022, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 15.9.2022 under Rule 11 of the Rule 1999. In his appeal, he had submitted that enquiry was conducted in gross violation of provisions contained in Rule 7 and in contravention of the Government Orders dated 19.7.2022 and 16.8.2022 and the petitioner was illegally continued under suspension for five years and only 50% of the salary was paid to him during the said proceedings. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the punishment, had preferred an appeal, which has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 14.12.2022.

6. The main contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the fact that:-

(a) Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla is the authority who had issued the charge sheet dated 5.1.2021 in his capacity as Chief Election Officer.

(b) The punishment order dated 24.6.2022 was also imposed by Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla in his capacity as Chief Election Officer, Election Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

(c) Lastly, Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla in his capacity as Secretary of Election Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 14.12.2022.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all canons of principles of natural justice have been violated in the conduct of enquiry against the petitioner apart from the fact that the respondents have acted malafide in keeping the enquiry proceedings pending for five years and the person, who had issued the charge sheet is the same persons, who proceeded to impose