Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1105 (ALL)

Rajesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U. P.

2021-09-23

NEERAJ TIWARI

body2021
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. 1. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:- "i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of re-enquiry dated 03.06.2021 passed by respondent No. 2." 2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 06.08.2021, learned standing counsel has produced instruction dated 13.09.2021 duly signed by Additional Commissioner, Department of Food and Logistics, which is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 9(2) of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1999'), in case of disagreement with inquiry report, it is required on the part of Disciplinary Authority to record reasons for conducting re-inquiry. In the present case, impugned order of re-inquiry has been passed without recording any reason, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of Shiv Shanker Lal vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as 2008 1 ADJ 446 and State of U.P. and others Vs. Neeraj Verma, reported as 2021 0 Supreme (All) 309. 4. Learned Standing Counsel from the instruction could not demonstrate any reason recorded by Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order of re-inquiry while having disagreement with inquiry report. He also could not demonstrate as to why reasons have not been recorded. 5. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the Rules, 1999 as well as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 clearly provides that Disciplinary Authority shall record reasons for conducting re-inquiry. Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 is quoted below:- "9. Action on Inquiry Report.-(1) The disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the disciplinary authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the disciplinary authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated by the disciplinary authority of the charges and inform him accordingly. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant." 7. In the case of Shiv Shanker Lal (Supra), impugned order has been quashed on the ground that reason has not been recorded for conducting re-inquiry. Paragraph Nos. 9 & 13 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "............... 9. A perusal of the aforesaid makes it clear that the same is nothing but reproduction of charge No. 2 levelled against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 28.08.2003. The Court is unable to find out any finding or reasons of the disciplinary authority for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer and in our view it is only a conclusion that the aforesaid charge is proved against the petitioner. Para 2 of the notice dated 30.07.2004 cannot be said to contain any finding and reason and on the contrary it is only, at the best, a conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority without recording its finding and reasons as mandated under Rule 9 (2) of 1999 Rules. .................. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 27.04.2006 (annexure-1) to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. .................. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 27.04.2006 (annexure-1) to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner conforming with the requirement of Rule 9(2) of 1999 Rules, if is so decides and may pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The exercise, as directed above, be completed within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the competent authority. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 2000/." Again, this Court in the matter of State of U.P. and others Vs. Neeraj Verma (Supra) has taken the same view. Paragraph No. 14 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "(14) In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order transpired that the inquiry officer exonerated the claimant/respondent of all the charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings particularly in respect to charges No.6, 7 and 8, and without recording/mentioning any reason with respect to the point on which the Disciplinary Authority has not agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer, straightaway issued a show cause notice to the claimant/ respondent, who, after receipt of the show cause notice, submitted his reply, but without considering the issue raised by the claimant/respondent in its reply to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of punishment, which has been challenged by the claimant/respondent in Claim Petition No. 253 of 2018. The Tribunal has also found that so far as delayed payment of the license fee is concerned, the Excise Commissioner had fixed 15.04.2015 for deposition of the license fee and prior to it, the claimant/respondent has deposited the license fee. The Tribunal has also opined that the punishment order is against the principle of natural justice. In these backgrounds, vide impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and quashed the order of punishment with a direction that if any service benefits if withheld on account of the punishment order dated 30.11.2017, the claimant/respondent is entitled to get the same, in accordance with law." 8. I have perused the impugned order in the present case. In these backgrounds, vide impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and quashed the order of punishment with a direction that if any service benefits if withheld on account of the punishment order dated 30.11.2017, the claimant/respondent is entitled to get the same, in accordance with law." 8. I have perused the impugned order in the present case. After having disagreement with inquiry report, Disciplinary Authority has passed order for re-inquiry, but no reason has been assigned and nothing has been stated as to why reason has not been recorded. Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1999 clearly provides that in case of disagreement with inquiry report and passing order for re-inquiry, it is required on the part of Disciplinary Authority to give his own finding i.e. reason has to be recorded, therefore, order is contrary to the Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1999 and is liable to be set aside. 9. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1999 as well as pronouncement made by this Court, impugned order dated 03.06.2021 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. 10. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is allowed. 11. However, respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1999 after giving opportunity to the petitioner.