Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural fairness, but the absence of witness examination does not automatically void an inquiry if the charged party fails to propose witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Bhupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed by the petitioner herein, the first petition being Writ- A No. 12078 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 05.10.2023, whereby the penalty of withholding the two increments of the petitioner and a censure entry was made against the petitioner herein and second Writ-A No. 15424 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to the respondent no.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.08.2025 with regard to payments of leave encashment, gratuity, etc. and fixation of the regular pension to the petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had been working as Senior Homeopathic Officer at Government Homeopathic Dispensary, Shankargarh, Jaunpur and he retired on 28th February 2025 from Jaunpur. Prior to that, he was working as Officiating District Homeopathic Officer, Bulandshahr. One Naresh Kumar was the pharmacist working under the petitioner here at District Bulandshahr. He had submitted a written complaint against the petitioner. Thereupon, the preliminary enquiry was conducted and a report dated 12.10.2021 was submitted by the Chief Development Officer, Bulandshahr, while issuing the warning to both the complainant Naresh Kumar, Pharmacist, as well as the petitioner herein to be careful in their behavior against each other as well as against the senior officers.

4. In the meantime, the Director, Homeopathy, Uttar Pradesh has directed the Joint Director, Education/ Enquiry Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry against the allegations made by said Naresh Kumar, Pharmacist against the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted by Prof. Vijay Kumar Pushkar and the preliminary enquiry report was submitted recommending the suspension of the petitioner and to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and also to transfer Naresh Kumar, Pharmacist to some other distant district and to initiate strict action against him as well.

5. On the basis of the aforementioned preliminary inquiry the petitioner was suspended and Dr. Prof. Anand Kumar Chaturvedi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to prepare the charge sheet against the petitioner herein, which was duly approved by the Additional Chief Secretary. The aforementioned charge sheet dated 22^nd March 2022 was duly served upon the petitioner. Having received the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply to the aforementioned charge sheet on 10.04.2022. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforementioned charge sheet the Enquiry Officer has not proposed any witness to be examined and so far as the documentary evidence is concerned, only the report of the preliminary enquiry was made the basis of the charges leveled against the petitioner. The copy of the said report dated 08.12.2021, which was relied upon for framing the charges, has also been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner, though has submitted his reply on 10.04.2022, however, did not propose to examine any witness in his support nor he proposed to bring on record any documentary evidence.

6. Having received the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has concluded the proceedings and submitted its report on 29.06.2022. On receipt of the enquiry report, the Additional Chief Secretary issued a show cause notice dated 03.08.2022 to the petitioner calling for the punishment to be awarded to the petitioner with regard to the two charges, which were found to have b