JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Arya Gautam, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Sri R.S. Umrao has made a statement at Bar that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Computer Operator in Grade-A in the year 2017. Alleging that when the writ petitioner was posted as Computer Operator Grade-A at Police Station- Sarkar, Jhansi in the year 2021, then the Inspector Incharge, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi submitted a report on 13.05.2021 and informed that on 12.05.2021, on the basis of the written complaint of Km. Neelam Srivas d/o Virendra had lodged an FIR in Case Crime no.0150 of 2021 under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act against the writ petitioner and the aforesaid case crime was investigated by the Circle Officer (City) and during the period of investigation the petitioner was arrested on 13.05.2021 and action was taken against the writ petitioner which tarnished the image of the Police and thereafter, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 13.05.2021 and he was reinstated in service on 13.05.2022. A preliminary inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 24.05.2021 alleging that the conduct of the writ petitioner was in violation of the provision contained under Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 and thereafter post-appointment of the inquiry officer, a departmental charge sheet came to be issued on 26.07.2021 and the writ petitioner tendered his reply on 08.01.2022 denying the charges and thereafter post-appointment of the inquiry officer inquiry report came to be submitted on 12.12.2022, proposing the punishment under Rule 4(1) (a) of the 1991 Rules of punishment/dismissal with a further observation that the said punishment would be effected post-approval. A show cause notice thereafter came to be issued and thereafter an order came to be passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Jhansi on 19.02.2023 dismissing the writ petitioner from service against which the writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on 18.05.2023, which came to be rejected on 09.06.2023 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Range, Jhansi.

5. Questioning the dismissal as well as appellate order, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that it was not the domain of the inquiry officer to propose punishment and that too specify that the same shall be made effective post approval by the disciplinary authority. Submission is that the function is entrusted with the disciplinary authority, who has to pass punishment order after looking into the gravity of the charges, whether minor or major as per the Rules. It is also contended that the only work entrusted to the inquiry officer was to conduct inquiry on the basis of the charges leveled in the charge sheet and to record a finding whether they stand proved or not. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharag Singh (2008) 8 SCC 426 as well as the order passed by the coordinate of this Court in Writ-A No.19952 of 2019, Mohd. Miyan vs. State of U.P. decided on 21.08.2025. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

7. Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the enquiry proceedings have been conducted as per the Rules and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that due opport