Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring the accused has the opportunity to contest evidence; reliance on a preliminary inquiry report without proper association is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents and Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the State of U.P. thereby inflicting the punishment of stoppage of three increments permanently with cumulative effect on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that present controversy relates to progress of the Harchandpur - Sirsaghat Road which was for a length of 0.968 kms. which in the review meeting Chaired by the concerned Minister was shown to have been completed.

4. It has been submitted that during an inquiry conducted by the Chief Engineer Central Public Works Department, Lucknow on 13.10.2022, it was found that 47 meters of the road had not been completed and work was still remaining. Accordingly, it is for the incorrect information supplied to the authorities, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and other persons who were responsible for the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge-sheet was submitted to the petitioner on 16.11.2022 containing four charges where the preliminary inquiry conducted on 13.10.2022 was also to be relied by the respondents in support of the said charges. It has been submitted that the petitioner was never associated with the preliminary inquiry and there is no doubt with regard to the fact that during inquiry proceedings, no further steps were taken to determine the allegations against the petitioner as to whether the entire length of the disputed road was completed or not and as to whether the petitioner was guilty for giving the wrong information.

6. It is stated that the question as to whether a preliminary inquiry report can be a basis for bringing the charges against the government servant was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat , 2013 (4) SCC 301 where it has been held that evident recorded in the disciplinarian inquiry cannot be used in a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given.

7. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the inquiry report as well as impugned order of punishment indicating that for approving the charges against the petitioner heavy reliance has been placed on the report of the inquiry committee. He has further submitted that the inquiry was concluded on 15.02.2023 and subsequently, the Inquiry Officer had suo motto directed the respondents to submit copy of the M.B. (Measurement Book) and other material which was handed over to him on 09.05.2023 and the additional material so produced was never given to the petitioner nor he was given any opportunity to confront with the additional material and the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority has relied upon the said material and contents of the M.B. (Measurement Book) to prove the charges against the petitioner resulting in the impugned order of punishment. It was stated that the inquiry proceeded in total violation of principles of natural justice and is therefore, liable to be set aside.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition on the basis of written instructions received from the Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, P.W.D., Raibareily stating that the inquiry proceedings against petitioner have been conducted in accordance with law and all the provisions contained in U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been followed and full opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. He has further submitted that even after submission of inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has given full opportunity of hearing to the petitio