Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to statutory procedures; failure to follow due process invalidates the punishment imposed on a government servant.

JUDGMENT :

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.I.M.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State as also Mr. R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P. Public Service Commission.

2. The petitioner, in the petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 9.9.2024 whereby the respondent No.1 has imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments for two years along with censure entry against the petitioner.

A further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of impugned order dated 9.9.2024 with another direction to the respondents to open sealed cover of petitioner's promotion to the post of Geologist and to implement the recommendation of the promotion committee ignoring the impugned order, Annexure-1 has also been sought.

3.The petitioner's counsel has assailed the impugned order dated 9.9.2024 on two grounds. Firstly, the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is dehors the provisions of Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short, 1999 Rules), and secondly, while passing the punishment order, office report was summoned and on the basis of office report, the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted that there is no provision in the 1999 Rules for summoning office report. The punishment order has to be passed on the basis of the enquiry conducted in pursuant to the charge sheet as well as the reply submitted to the show cause notice by the delinquent government servant and no other extraneous material is permitted. It is further submitted that the oral evidence proposed to be examined during the course of enquiry as mentioned in the charge sheet has not been recorded in this case and as such, the enquiry is vitiated.

4.Learned standing counsel has opposed the contention and submitted that since the minor penalty has been inflicted and therefore, there is no reason for examining the witnesses.

5.The petitioner appears to have been placed under suspension vide order dated 6.1.2022. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by the enquiry officer on 8.12.2022, which contains only one charge. The documentary evidence as well as oral evidence which were proposed to be examined during the enquiry were mentioned. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet where after, the enquiry officer heard the petitioner personally and on that basis, without examining any other witness as proposed in the charge- sheet, the enquiry officer sent enquiry report to the State Government. The State Government, vide order dated 1.12.2023, remanded the matter to the enquiry officer with a direction to conduct oral enquiry and also examine the evidence and then to submit fresh enquiry report.

After remand by the State Government, the enquiry officer again conducted enquiry and submitted his enquiry report dated 24.7.2024, contained in Annexure No.RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit.

6.A perusal of the enquiry report shows that during enquiry, the proposed oral evidence was not led before the enquiry officer as provided in Rule 7(vii) of 1999 Rules. None of the witnesses as mentioned in the charge sheet has been summoned and examined during the course of enquiry. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have a reference to Rule 7(vii) of 1999 Rules which is extracted below :

"Where the charged Government servan