Disciplinary proceedings involving major penalties are vitiated when the inquiry authority fails to hold an oral hearing, record witness evidence, provide a reasoned order considering the defense, or explain inordinate delays, thereby violating mandatory procedural rules and the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

FACTS AND RELIEFS SOUGHT

Reliefs Claimed in the Writ Petition

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned punishment order dated 10.09.2025 passed by respondent No. 2, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3. Another writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought for setting aside the consequential order dated 09.12.2025 passed by respondent No. 2, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner against the punishment order has been rejected.

4. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders dated 10.09.2025 and 09.12.2025 and to restore all consequential service benefits, including the withheld increment, as if the impugned orders had never been passed.

Facts Giving Rise to the Present Petition

5. The brief facts of the case are that the District Magistrate, Lucknow, vide letter dated 13.12.2018, recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, who was then posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, for alleged irregularities committed by him in the allotment of a housing site in Village Bhasanda, Pargana Nigoha, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

6. Consequently, vide order dated 13.02.2019, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1999"), and the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer.

7. Thereafter, an approved charge-sheet dated 28.05.2019 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, whereafter the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his inquiry report to the State Government vide letter dated 26.11.2020.

8. From a perusal of the record, it appears that out of the two charges levelled against the petitioner, Charge No. 1 was found proved in the inquiry report. Thereafter, the State Government, vide letter dated 17.12.2020, forwarded a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent petitioner and called for his representation thereon. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply/representation to the Government vide letter dated 27.02.2021.

Findings Recorded by the Disciplinary Authority

9. After considering the charge-sheet, the inquiry report, and the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice, it was found that the petitioner had approved the list prepared by the Naib Tehsildar and the Kanoongo for allotment of housing sites in Village Bhasanda without properly scrutinizing the eligibility and ineligibility of the beneficiaries, for which he was held responsible.

10. It was further found that the petitioner had granted approval to the proposal passed by the Land Management Committee without due scrutiny, which reflected laxity and negligence on his part