Departmental inquiries must adhere to prescribed procedures, and disproportionate punishment violates principles of natural justice.

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Ms. Rani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The order under challenge is a dismissal order dated 29.7.2004 (contained as Annexure no. 1) passed by the opposite party no. 2, i.e. Housing Commissioner, U.P. Housing and Development Board, Lucknow.

3. Before adverting to the facts and merits of this case it is to indicate that the petitioner Naipal Singh who filed this writ petition has died and his wife Smt. Karuna Singh has been substituted on 25.7.2022.

4. It is also relevant to indicate that the judgment and order of this Court was reserved on 2.11.2022 and the same was pronounced on 29.5.2023 dismissing the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 29.5.2023. Challenging the judgment and order dated 29.5.2023, Special Appeal No. 402 of 2023 was filed before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench disposed of the special appeal finally vide order dated 10.8.2023 setting aside the judgment and order dated29.5.2023 remanding back the matter to the writ court to decide this writ petition afresh.

5. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra has submitted that the impugned dismissal order has been passed on the basis of defective departmental inquiry inasmuch as the departmental inquiry has not been conducted and concluded as per procedure prescribed.

6. The enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is in complete violation of principles of natural justice and also the relevant service rules on account of the fact that the deceased Petitioner was never served with copies of document on the basis of which the charges were framed against the deceased Petitioner along with the charge- sheet dated 30.07.2002. As a matter of fact, even after several requests were made by the deceased Petitioner vide his letters dated 07.07.2004, 14.07.2004, 16.7.2004 and 19.07.2004, no heed was paid by the enquiry officer to either provide with the documents or reply to the requests made by the deceased Petitioner.

7. Sri Mehrotra has submitted that from bare perusal of the enquiry report dated 22.04.2004 submitted by the enquiry officer, it is not borne out that the Interregnum reply sent by the deceased Petitioner, under anticipation that the documents along with the charge-sheet dated 30.07.2002 would be provided by the enquiry officer, has been taken into account and considered by the enquiry officer while submitting his enquiry report dated 22.04.2004.

8. The relevant provisions governing the services of the deceased Petitioner are Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants of the Board Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 1966" for thesake of brevity) wherein an elaborate procedure has been enumerated in Regulation 27 of Regulations, 1966 for conducting disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee. For ease of perusal and kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court, Regulation 27 of Regulations, 1966, is herein below:

"27. (1) No order on an officer or servant of the Board any of the penalties specified in clauses (e) to (g) of regulation 25 shall be passed except after an inquiry, held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided.

(2) The disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges. together with a Statement of the allegations on which they based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer or servant and be shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the disciplinary authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person.

Explanation: In this sub-regulation and in sub-regulation (3) the expression "the disciplinary authority shall included the authority competent under these regulations to to impose any of the penalties in clauses (a)