IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that a departmental inquiry must adhere to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice; failure to do so invalidates the resulting punishment.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Alok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Singh Atal, learned Chief Standing Counsel-I for the State-opposite parties.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs:

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 30.8.2006, 2/6.2.2008 and 28.12.2019 as contained as Annexure Nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively to this writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pass appropriate order for restoring the pay scale of petitioner, which would have been applicable to the petitioner in absence of impugned order dated 30.8.2006 and thereafter pay regular salary accordingly.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary after restoring it to the level it would have been in absence of impugned order dated 30.8.2006.

(iv) to pass such other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(vii) to allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner.”

3. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the punishment order dated 30.08.2006, passed by the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Collector/District Magistrate, Sitapur, whereby major punishment of reversion of the petitioner to the initial/basic pay of his substantive post of Stenographer was passed without following the prescribed procedure contained in statutory Rules, i.e. Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 1999”). The petitioner is also challenging the validity of the order dated 2/6.02.2008, passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. opposite party no. 2 as well as the order dated 28.12.2019, passed by opposite party no. 2 in the statutory revision filed by the petitioner inasmuch as both the orders were mechanically passed in violation of the Rules, 1999 as well as without application of mind, hence not tenable in law.

4. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Typist in the office of Tehsildar, Biswan, District-Sitapur through direct appointment on 23.06.1987. Meanwhile, another direct recruitment was advertised on the post of Stenographer in which the petitioner qualified the written examination of shorthand and typing and got substantive appointment of Stenographer in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli, Sitapur on 18.03.1993 and his services were confirmed as such on 04.02.1998. As per the date of birth, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2024.

5. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned punishment order has been passed on the basis of illegal departmental inquiry whereby the departmental inquiry has been conducted and concluded without fixing date, time and place for oral inquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence/witnesses. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No. 12 of the writ petition, which is the findings of the inquiry report, which is undated, however, the same has been served upon the petitioner on 25.07.2006 alongwith show cause notice. The findings of the Inquiry Officer clearly reveals that the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 22.05.2006 and the petitioner submitted his defence reply to the show cause notice on 12.06.2006. Thereafter, without fixing any date, time and place for oral inquiry, the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 14.07.2006 and on the basis of aforesaid exercise, the inquiry has been concluded.

6. On being confronted the learned Standing Counsel as to whether oral inquiry has been conducted or not, learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that no oral inquiry has been conducted.

7. Learned counse