Back
Quashes Reversion of Engineer Pawan Kumar Over Procedural Violations
In a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of in disciplinary proceedings, the quashed the reversion of Executive Engineer Pawan Kumar, finding that two separate departmental inquiries against him were conducted in "complete violation" of mandatory procedures under the .
Justice Kumar Manish, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that a cannot be sustained when an inquiry is conducted without examining a single witness, without providing a list of documents or witnesses in the , and without affording the delinquent an opportunity to the authors of reports on which the charges were founded.
The Case of the Non-Functional Tube Wells
Pawan Kumar was posted as Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Siwan from to . A joint inspection of 13 tube wells in led to allegations of excess payments totalling about ₹3.54 crore and preparation of estimates without physical verification. Based on this report, Kumar was placed under suspension in and a departmental inquiry was initiated.
A second, entirely separate proceeding was later initiated regarding alleged non-verification of waste/scrap material at Gopalganj Division and failure to auction it at book price.
Two Inquiries, One Flawed Outcome
Both inquiries were conducted by the same Enquiry Officer – the Additional Departmental Enquiry Commissioner-cum-Additional Member, . In each case, the officer returned findings of guilt without examining any witnesses or exhibiting any documents. The authors of the joint inspection report and the charge in the second proceeding were never produced for cross-examination.
Crucially, in the first proceeding, the
had submitted a report on the very same allegations, specifically recording that
"no financial irregularity and no excess payment"
was found during Kumar's tenure. This
, placed before the Enquiry Officer, was completely ignored in the final inquiry report.
Based on the two inquiry reports, the imposed a of reversion from Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer, along with censure for the year 2013-14. A subsequent review petition was also rejected.
Court's Scrutiny: A Catalogue of Procedural Failures
The court identified multiple fatal flaws in the disciplinary process. First, the
dated
did not include any list of documents or witnesses, as mandated by
. This deficiency at the very threshold
"
the charge itself, and everything built upon it."
Second, no witnesses were examined in either proceeding. The authors of the reports forming the basis of the charges were never produced for cross-examination, contrary to . Relying on the 's decision in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010), the court observed that an Enquiry Officer acts in a and cannot merely proceed on the basis of allegations without ensuring that the department establishes the charges through proper evidence.
Third, the court noted that the exculpatory vigilance report was not considered at all.
"The failure to even advert to a report of a competent departmental vigilance mechanism, which returns a finding directly contrary to the charge, renders the finding recorded in the Enquiry Report
and, to that extent,
,"
the court stated.
Fourth, the punishment was imposed by clubbing findings from two independent proceedings without any order for common proceedings under , making the impermissible.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"An Enquiry Officer exercising statutory and quasi-judicial powers is expected to act independently, fairly and in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the applicable Rules. The Enquiry Officer cannot merely proceed on the basis of the allegations contained in the charge or the conclusions recorded in a preliminary inspection report without ensuring that the Department establishes the alleged charge in accordance with the prescribed procedure."
"The least which this Court can expect from such officials is to abide and ensure that the core in departmental proceedings are being followed in its letter and spirit."
The court also cited the classic principle from
Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works
(1863), quoting God's question to Adam – "Where art thou?" – to illustrate the ancient roots of the . It further relied on
Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.
(2009) to emphasize that
is
"the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience."
No Second Chance for the Department
The state argued that the matter could be remitted for a fresh inquiry. However, the court declined, applying the 's decision in
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh
(2025). Noting that not a single witness was produced in 2014, the court observed that witnesses would likely not be available now, and given the lapse of time and the petitioner's retirement, it would be
"highly unfair and unjust to subject the petitioner to face the enquiry once again."
The court quashed both the original punishment order dated , and the review rejection order dated . The question of treatment of the intervening period and monetary benefits was left to the competent authority to decide in accordance with law.
The judgment serves as a strong reminder that disciplinary authorities must adhere strictly to and , even when dealing with allegations of financial irregularities. A departmental inquiry that short-circuits these protections cannot be allowed to stand.
