Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Janardan Prasad Dwivedi – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others - Respondents
Writ A. No. 11949 Of 2024
Decided On : 30-09-2024
(A) Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9 - Inquiry against government servant - Petitioner suspended pending inquiry into charges of misconduct - Inquiry Officer exonerated petitioner, but State Government rejected report and ordered de novo inquiry - Court quashed the impugned order for lack of sufficient reasoning and adherence to procedural guidelines. (Paras 4, 24)
(B) Judicial Review - The authority exercising power under Rule 9 must provide clear reasons for rejecting inquiry reports and cannot reiterate findings quashed by the court. (Paras 16, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was suspended for alleged misconduct, including illegal mining and failure to comply with orders. An inquiry exonerated him, but the State Government ordered a fresh inquiry without adequate justification.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed due to insufficient reasoning and failure to follow procedural requirements.
Issues: Whether the Principal Secretary's order violated the court's previous findings and whether the inquiry was conducted properly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere reference to procedural breaches is insufficient; the authority must substantiate claims with evidence.
Result: Writ petition allowed in part, impugned order quashed.
JUDGMENT :
(J.J. Munir, J.)
1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the State Government dated 19.06.2024 made by the Principal Secretary, Geology and Mining Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, directing further inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, 'the Rules of 1999').
2. The petitioner was suspended pending inquiry into charges, inter alia, about not presenting mining and transport files in time before the Officer concerned, not complying with the orders of the former District Magistrate promptly and being lax in securing execution of his orders, engaging in illegal mining, transport and amassing wealth by illegally collecting moneys with the connivance of close relatives and associates; and, above all, in conspiracy with active touts, permitting transport of minerals without the necessary MM Form 11, as also passage of overloaded transport vehicles. In course of time, a charge-sheet dated 30.08.2022/ 01.09.2022 was issued by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner, to which he submitted a reply dated 07.10.2022. A supplementary charge-sheet dated 02.01.2023 was then issued by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 20.01.2023 to the charge-sheet dated 02.01.2023. It appears that an inquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, who submitted a report dated 22.02.2023, exonerating the petitioner of all charges.
3. The inquiry report was placed before the State Government. The Secretary in the Department of Mines and Minerals, Government of Uttar Pradesh rejected the report of the Inquiry Officer and directed an inquiry de novo. On occasion, a new Inquiry Officer was appointed and this appointment was in favour of the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur. The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the State Government on ground, inter alia, that reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, as mandated by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1999. The challenge aforesaid was laid by the petitioner by a writ petition instituted before this Court, being Writ-A No.12075 of 2023.
4. The writ petition aforesaid was heard and allowed vide order dated 20.11.2023, where the suspension order dated 28. 04.2022 was quashed, besides the order dated 11.05.2023, directing inquiry de novo and a further order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the newly appointed Inquiry Officer, the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur, asking the petitioner to appear before him. The State Government were, however, granted liberty to pass orders afresh in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1999, declining or accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, by means of a reasoned and speaking order.
5. Now, by the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary, Geology and Mining Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, acting for the Government, has rejected the inquiry reports dated 22.03.2023 and 21.12.2022 (there appear to be two reports relating to the two inquiries) and directed inquiry de novo to be held into the charges. Reliance has been placed by the Principal Secretary on a Government Order dated 19.07.2022, which mentions the 'dos and don'ts' in a disciplinary inquiry. Finding a breach of the 'dos and don'ts' stipulated in paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 of the Government Order dated 19.07.2022, the inquiry reports have been rejected, recording the following reasons:
“HINDI IMAGE”
6. A further remark in the impugned order founded the rejection of the inquiry report entirely on the edifice of the Government Order dated 19.07.2022 and that remark, which is the concluding one in the order impugned, reads:
“HINDI IMAGE”
7. When the writ petition came up for admission, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, that the order of the Principal Se
The authority must provide clear, substantiated reasons for rejecting inquiry reports, adhering to procedural guidelines to ensure fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
The court established that adherence to procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice is essential in disciplinary inquiries against government servants, particularly the requirement to p....
The failure to follow prescribed inquiry procedures and principles of natural justice invalidates disciplinary actions against government servants.
The mandatory nature of the procedure under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 in disciplinary proceedings and the requirement to adhere to natural justice principles.
Disciplinary inquiry under 1999 Rules vitiated without oral hearing opportunity to delinquent, even absent proposed witnesses by either side, as implicit in rules for natural justice compliance.
In disciplinary inquiries for major penalties, the establishment must present evidence and examine witnesses; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.
The duty of the establishment to produce witnesses and evidence in departmental inquiries, especially in cases involving a major penalty, and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.
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.
It is open for the inquiry authority in its discretion to allow the presenting officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the government servant or the inquiry authority may itself....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
