Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
Hari Shankar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 14109 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Gulrez Khan, Javed Husain Khan
For the Respondent: Rohit Pandey
In disciplinary actions, individual misconduct must be clearly established to justify severe penalties such as compulsory retirement and deduction of gratuity.
Headnote:(A) University Statutes - Disciplinary proceedings - Compulsory retirement of employee inflicted based on allegations of negligence regarding answer booklet evaluation - Key findings fail to establish specific misconduct against the employee and instead indicate collective responsibility. (Paras 3, 21, 24)
(B) Essential due process in disciplinary actions necessitates clear findings of individual misconduct. (Paras 21, 23)
(C) Sanctioning employee without substantiated misconduct contravenes principles of natural justice. (Paras 20, 23)
Facts of the case:
Employee challenged compulsory retirement effective from 6.6.2019 due to alleged negligence related to handling of answer booklets and RTI applications. Inquiry report revealed lapses were primarily institutional, with no specific liability on the employee.
Findings of Court:
The inquiry did not substantiate any misconduct specific to the employee, and the deduction of gratuity lacked legal foundation as it was not tied to any financial loss caused to the university.
Issues: Whether the employee was guilty of negligence and whether the punishment was justified in the absence of specific charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that without clear evidence of individual wrongdoing, the decision to impose compulsory retirement and the deduction of gratuity was unsustainable.
Result: Writ petition allowed, orders set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial proceedings and factual background (Para 1) |
| 2. background of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments regarding misconduct and responsibility. (Para 4 , 17) |
| 4. appellant's arguments against charges (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. court findings and observations on evidence (Para 14) |
| 6. findings from the enquiry report on misconduct. (Para 15 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. final order to set aside the compulsory retirement. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-University.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 6.6.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Committee as well as resolution dated 10.11.2020. Further, prayer has been made in writ petition for directing respondents to treat the petitioner in service till the date of retirement i.e. 31.10.2019 and pay arrears of salary for the period 6.6.2019 to 31.10.2019 and further all consequential benefits.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as routine clerk/typist by order dated 1.4.1982. Petitioner was granted promotion from time to time and finally petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent by order dated 22.12.2015 and thereafter petitioner was promoted on Adhoc basis on the post of Assistant Registrar by order dated 6.7.2018. Petitioner received chargesheet dated 26.4.2019 alleging negligence in duty in respect of three charges mentioned in the above-mentioned chargesheet. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the chargesheet denying allegations against the petitioner by means of reply dated 2.5.2019. After enquiry proceedings, enquiry report was submitted on 17.5.2019 holding the petitioner guilty of negligence/indifferent on the basis of fact that petitioner was responsible for the alleged act. The petitioner thereafter was issued a show cause notice dated 30.5.2019 against the enquiry report dated 17.5.2019. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 1.6.2019 in respect of show cause notice dated 30.5.2019. Thereafter, by means of the impugned order dated 6.6.2019, petitioner was inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the order dated 6.6.2019 before the Disciplinary Committee under the University Statutes. The Disciplinary Committee dismissed the appeal of petitioner by order dated 10.11.2020 and said dismissal of appeal was approved by Executive Council in its meeting dated 10.11.2020.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that order dated 6.6.2019 directs compulsory retirement of petitioner with deduction of 50% gratuity, in pursuance to disciplinary proceedings. The chargesheet dated 26.4.2019 alleged three charges against the petitioner. The first charge pertains to the fact that after evaluation of answer sheets it was found that the answer sheet has been written subsequently and as such the petitioner was alleged to be negligent and indifferent to his work. The second charge against the petitioner pertains that keys of evaluation centre being handed over to Daily Assistant – Satya Prakash without permission of higher authorities. The third charge against the petitioner pertains to failure of petitioner to supervise progress when the copy of answer sheet was given to the students. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that charges against the petitioner were denied by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner who was working on the post of Office Superintendent in the respondent-University by order dated 6.6.2019 has been inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement along with deduction of 50% of gratuity. The facts and circumstances which led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner are to the effect that for the Academic Session 2017-18, in resp
