JUDGMENT

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chainman in Tehsil-Utraula, District-Balrampur. He, after attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 30.05.2004. During his service period, certain irregularities were found against him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated and finally vide punishment order dated 24.02.1993 disciplinary proceedings were concluded and petitioner was awarded following punishments:-

"1. Petitioner was reverted on the basic pay scale.

2. Petitioner was held entitled in suspension allowance and adverse entry was made in his character roll."

3. This punishment order was not acted upon and only on 21.05.2003 when the fact of the punishment given to the petitioner came in the knowledge of the authorities, the pay fixation was determined in view of the aforesaid punishment order and the petitioner was retired on 30.05.2004 and excess amount paid to him was recovered from his gratuity. After the delay of 11 years, against the aforesaid punishment order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner on 20.02.2004. The appellate authority vide order dated 12.06.2014 was of the view that non-serving of a process, which was the charge on the petitioner, is not a serious charge and the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to his charge and hence remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate with a direction to pass appropriate orders. In purported compliance of the appellate order, the impugned punishment order dated 25.08.2014 has been passed whereby the disciplinary authority has reduced the punishment and has stopped the two annual increments payable to the petitioner at that time with cumulative effect. The remaining punishment remained the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that impugned orders are de hors the Rule 15 of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules, 1999"). He submits that while passing the impugned orders the authorities have not followed the Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1999. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned orders are de hors of the principles of natural justice.

5. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition. He submits that charge-sheet was served on 01.09.1992 and the punishment order of reversion was passed on 24.02.1993 however, the appeal was filed against the punishment order on 20.02.2004 which was highly belated and should have been dismissed out-rightly and summarily by the appellate authority under Rule 11 (4) of the Rules, 1999 however, instead of dismissing the appeal summarily, the appeal was considered and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority by giving a sympathetic consideration. He submits that contention of the petitioner that opportunity of hearing is must in view of Rule 9 (4) of the Rules, 1999 is fallacious. He submits that now the stage has gone from the stage of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999. The order has been passed after the appellate stage and therefore, no opportunity is required. He further submits that it was not directed that punishment be enhanced however, only fresh orders were required to be passed by the disciplinary authority by giving the petitioner a lesser punishment and therefore, for these reasons, there was no need to provide opportunity of hearing before awarding this penalty.

6. The aforesaid Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999 has reproduced as under:-

"9. Action on Inquiry Report-(1) The Disciplinary authority may, for reason to be recorded in writing, remit the case for reenquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government Servant. the Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from