Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural rules and principles of natural justice, relying solely on evidence presented during inquiries without seeking external opinions post-inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Surya Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Standing counsel for the respondent.

2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission itself.

3. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2024 passed by Principal Secretary, Sugar Cane Department thereby inflicting punishment of stoppage of two increments permanent, and also giving a censure entry to the petitioner.

4, Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the procedure adopted by the respondents while inflicting punishment on the petitioner is in gross violation of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1999) specifically rule 9 where after submission of the inquiry report the inquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. The inquiry officer sought opinion of the Controlling Authority of the petitioner and without affording any opportunity inflicted the aforesaid punishment. He submits that apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the said punishment is alien to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1999 and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

5. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was posted on the post of Deputy Cane Commissioner, Saharanpur when certain allegations were levelled against him for not effectively complying with the tagging orders which are issued by the District Magistrate against the product of Sugar Mills to ensure payment of cane price and the inquiry proceedings commenced by issuance of charge sheet on 13.9.2023 to the petitioner containing four charges of similar nature.

6. It has been submitted that though the order of the District Magistrate directing that all the revenue collected by the Cane Officer from the sale of sugar cane and molasses etc. should be so utilized so as that 85 percent of the cane price is paid to the farmers was not effectively supervised and accordingly for the said negligence the petitioner was charged.

7. The petitioner had filed his reply to the charge sheet on 26.5.2022 and denied the said allegations. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 9.1.2023 exonerating the petitioner of all the charges and dealt with all the materials which were led in this regard and found that it is District Cane Officer, Shamli, who has not complied with the directions of the District Magistrate due to which there was no effective realization of the payments of cane price to the farmers.

8. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner issued a show cause notice on 7.6.2023 indicating that though according to the inquiry officer the petitioner has been exonerated of all the four charges but further recorded that the petitioner did not led sufficient evidence and accordingly he is guilty of negligence and has asked the petitioner to submit his reply to the same. It is clear that the petitioner had been exonerated of all the charges by the inquiry office and there is no mention that the disciplinary authority at the stage of issuance of show cause notice has disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer had directed the petitioner to submit his reply as to why he should not be held to be guilty of negligence.

9. The petitioner submitted his reply on 8.1.2023 denying all the allegations and by means of the impugned order dated 23.9.2024 punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner which has been assailed in the