Disciplinary proceedings necessitate oral inquiry when major penalties are imposed; failure to conduct such inquiry violates principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - Disciplinary proceedings - No oral hearing conducted in departmental inquiry - Inquiry reported results based on documents without witness examination - Court held oral inquiry mandatory for major penalty - Previous rulings emphasized oral inquiry as essential to uphold natural justice and procedural fairness. (Paras 7-10)

(B) The principles of compliance with prescribed procedure are essential in discharging duties by administrative authorities, as noted in relevant case law. (Paras 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced charges without an opportunity to participate in an oral inquiry; the inquiry officer conducted it ex parte and based findings solely on records submitted.

Findings of Court:
The lack of a proper oral inquiry is a serious flaw that vitiates disciplinary proceedings, warranting quashing of the impugned order and requiring fresh inquiry procedures.

Issues: Main questions include the necessity of oral inquiry in major penalty cases and adherence to procedural rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of an oral hearing constitutes a violation of principles of natural justice, requiring that inquiry processes include oral examination of witnesses to substantiate charges and ensure fairness.

Result: Impugned order quashed; new inquiry ordered with fresh procedures.

Table of Content
1. commencement of the judgment and consideration of the parties' submissions. (Para 1)
2. overview of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. (Para 2)
3. procedural flaws in disciplinary inquiry (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
4. right to oral inquiry as per natural justice (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. mandatory evidence examination in inquiries (Para 10 , 11)
6. order quashed, fresh inquiry mandated (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. final disposition of the original records. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. Learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court the original records relating to the disciplinary proceedings drawn against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 1st July, 2025 and before the Court opens the original records, learned Standing Counsel fairly concedes that no oral hearing was conducted in the matter of departmental inquiry/ domestic inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer.

3. Upon perusal of the records it transpires that petitioner was issued with a chargesheet on 6th December, 2022 inviting his explanation by the inquiry officer vide letter dated 25th March, 2023. Since petitioner did not submit any reply, therefore, departmental inquiry was proceeded with against him on the basis of records available and report was submitted on 6th October, 2023.

4. Upon perusal of the records I further find that on 31st October, 2022, Consolidation Commissioner appointed Deputy Director Consolidation, Basti as inquiry officer to conduct the domestic inquiry in terms of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (herein after referred to as 'Rules, 1999'). Thereafter a letter was written as a reminder by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Basti to Mr. Aish Mohammad, namely the petitioner, the then consolidation officer to submit his reply as more than four months have passed, failing which the Deputy Director Consolidation during this inquiry has proceeded ex parte and thereafter inquiry report got submitted on 6th October, 2023.

5. Upon perusal of the record it transpires that the Deputy Director Consolidation, Basti wrote a letter to the Settlement Officer, Maharajganj and as a consequence thereto it appears that Deputy Director Consolidation, Basti proceeded to conclude the inquiry and submit report on 6th October, 2023.

6. Upon perusal of the report dated 6th October, 2023 which is available on record in original, I do not find there to be any reference of any letter fixing a date for personal hearing or inviting any departmental witness to be examined, before the inquiry officer proceeded to submit report bringing home the charge in respect of all the allegations and charges framed against the petitioner. I find that he has held petitioner guilty on the basis of his own assessment of records.

7. It is interesting to notice that the charges relate to the discharge of quasi judicial exercise of power of the petitioner and consolidation officer in the matter of objection being decided under Sections 9 and 12 the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and therefore, the authority was to consider and appreciate the documents available on record relating to the disposal of the proceedings and then the relevant departmental witnesses ought to have examined. For ready reference, Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 is reproduced hereunder:

"7. Procedure for imposing major penalties - Before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner:

(i) The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges.

(ii) The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the disciplinary authority:

Provided that where the appointing authority is Governor, the c