Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1740 (ALL)

Renu Yadav v. State of U. P.

2023-07-20

MANJIVE SHUKLA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. Arti Raje, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging therein the order dated 24.6.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad, whereby punishment in the form of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed. Petitioner through this writ petition has also challenged the order dated 6.2.2023 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 24.6.2021 has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad passed an order on 4.3.2021, whereby petitioner’s services were placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. In the suspension order dated 4.3.2021, it was mentioned that one Smt. Simra Devi, who was working as cook in Primary School Rasoolabad, Block Tundla, District Firozabad, was cleaning the kitchen and due to leakage in the gas cylinder, she suffered serious injuries. Petitioner at that point of time was posted as Head Mistress in the said school, but she was on child care leave from 5.2.2021 to 16.3.2021. Though on receiving the information in respect of the aforesaid incident petitioner, came in the school and took Smt. Simra Devi to Primary Health Centre but from there Smt. Simra Devi was referred to S.N. Hospital, Agra. Petitioner did not extend cooperation in the medical treatment of Smt. Simra Devi and came back to her home. 4. The Inquiry Officer issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 25.3.2021, wherein five charges were levelled and the petitioner was required to submit her reply to the charges within fifteen days. 5. Petitioner submitted her reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 25.3.2021 on 3.4.2021, wherein petitioner categorically stated that every help which was possible on the part of the petitioner was extended to Smt. Simra Devi in respect of her treatment but since the behaviour of the villagers and the family members of Smt. Simra Devi was very violent towards the petitioner and her husband, therefore the petitioner, in the night at about 9.00 p.m., came back to her home. 6. 6. The Block Education Officer, Block Tundla, District Firozabad, after receiving the aforesaid reply of the petitioner, straightaway submitted inquiry report to the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad on 21.6.2021. The Inquiry Officer in the aforesaid inquiry report dated 21.6.2021 has recorded finding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet have been found proved. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad, on the basis of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report dated 21.6.2021, passed an order on 24.6.2021 whereby punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed against the petitioner. 7. Petitioner against the aforesaid punishment order dated 24.6.2021 passed by the Disciplinary Authority filed an appeal as contemplated in Rule 7 of The U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, wherein categorical ground was taken by the petitioner that Inquiry Officer has not followed due procedure prescribed under the rules for the purpose of inquiry. It was categorically stated in the appeal that no date, time and place was fixed for holding inquiry. The Inquiry Officer after receiving reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet, has straightaway submitted inquiry report on 21.6.2021. Petitioner in her appeal also took categorical ground that after receiving the inquiry report dated 21.6.2021, the Disciplinary Authority did not issue any show cause notice and also did not provide copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner to submit reply against the findings recorded in the inquiry report and straightaway has passed the punishment order on 24.6.2021. Petitioner in her appeal categorically stated that since the procedure prescribed for holding disciplinary inquiry under the rules has not been followed and copy of the inquiry report was not provided to her and even she was not given show cause notice by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore the entire inquiry stands vitiated and thereby punishment order dated 24.6.2021 whereby major penalty has been imposed against her, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. 8. Since the Appellate Authority did not decide the appeal filed by the petitioner, therefore she filed Writ-A No.10716 of 2022 before this Court, which was finally disposed of vide order dated 26.7.2022, whereby direction was issued to the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad to consider and decide the petitioner’s appeal filed on 20.9.2021, by a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of service of certified copy of the order. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 26.7.2022, the Appellate Authority has passed an order on 6.2.2023 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that disciplinary proceedings against Assistant Teachers and Head Teachers of the primary schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board are governed by the provisions made in the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1973”). Rule 3 of the Rules of 1973 provides the punishments which can be imposed on the teachers and further the Rule 5(3) of the Rules of 1973 provides that the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1999”) shall apply in the matters of the disciplinary proceedings against teachers. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 provides a detailed procedure to be adopted in the matters of imposition of major penalties. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 is extracted as under:- "7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. -Before imposing any major penalty on a Government Servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner : (i) The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. (ii) The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the disciplinary authority : Provided that where the appointing authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary; as the case may be, of the concerned department. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the disciplinary authority : Provided that where the appointing authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary; as the case may be, of the concerned department. (iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government Servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidences and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidences, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet. (iv) The charged Government Servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex parte. (v) The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government Servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation: Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government Servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer. (vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission. (vii) Where the charged Government Servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government Servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. (vii) Where the charged Government Servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government Servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence : Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. (viii) The Inquiry Officer may summon any witnesses to give evidence or require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976. (ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges. (x) Where the charged Government Servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex-parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant. (xi) The Disciplinary Authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may by an order appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (xi) The Disciplinary Authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may by an order appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (xii) The Government Servant may take the assistance of any other Government Servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner of the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits : Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases : (i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules." 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the procedure which has been provided under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 mandates that the Inquiry Officer after receipt of the reply of the charge-sheet, shall fix date, time and place for holding oral inquiry. It has further been provided that the Inquiry Officer will record the evidence of the witnesses in support of the charges levelled in the charge sheet and shall provide opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses. The Inquiry Officer thereafter will also provide opportunity to the delinquent employee to produce evidence in his defence. Only after adopting the aforesaid procedure, the Inquiry Officer will submit the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the case of the petitioner the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 has not been followed at all and the Inquiry Officer has not fixed any date, time and place for holding oral inquiry. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the case of the petitioner the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 has not been followed at all and the Inquiry Officer has not fixed any date, time and place for holding oral inquiry. The Inquiry Officer has not recorded evidence in support of the charges and has not provided opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and further no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to produce any evidence in her defence. The Inquiry Officer without adopting due procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, after receipt of the reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet has sraightaway submitted inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 21.6.2021. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus argued that since the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 has not been followed, the entire inquiry in the matter of the petitioner stands vitiated. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court towards Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1999 wherein it is provided that after submission of the inquiry report if the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that any penalty specified under the rules should be imposed on the charged government servant, he shall provide a copy of the inquiry report to the charged government servant and require him to submit his reply to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, within a reasonable time, whereas in the case of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has not provided copy of the inquiry report to her and even did not issue any show cause notice thereby requiring the petitioner to submit her response to the findings recorded in the inquiry report, therefore the mandatory provisions of Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1999 have been violated and thus, the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1999, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 14. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the Appellate Authority, while rejecting the appeal has not considered the categorical grounds taken by the petitioner in her appeal in respect of violation of Rule 7 and Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1999 and straightaway has rejected her appeal vide order dated 6.2.2023, as such the order passed by the Appellate Authority is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 4004 and in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2018 SCC Online All 5533. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 . 16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the aforesaid judgments, law in respect of the procedure to be followed in the disciplinary proceedings against the government servants in the State of U.P. has already been thrashed out and it has been categorically held that the Inquiry Officer after receipt of the reply of the charge-sheet by the delinquent employee has to conduct oral inquiry by fixing date, time and place and further evidence in support of charge has to be recorded and delinquent employee is also required to be given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and only thereafter the Inquiry Officer should submit the inquiry report. If the Inquiry Officer has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, then entire inquiry stands vitiated and the punishment order passed on the basis of the said inquiry report cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 17. If the Inquiry Officer has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, then entire inquiry stands vitiated and the punishment order passed on the basis of the said inquiry report cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 17. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 2 and 3, wherein the fact that the Inquiry Officer did not fix date, time and place for holding oral inquiry has not been denied and it has also not been denied that the Disciplinary Authority did not issue show cause notice to the petitioner annexing therewith the copy of the inquiry report and requiring the petitioner to submit her response to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 though could not justify the violation of procedure prescribed under Rule 7 and Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1999 but has vehemently argued that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and they have been found fully proved by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 has further argued that the cook working in the primary school where the petitioner is Head Mistress, suffered serious injuries due to fire as a result of leakage in the gas cylinder but petitioner was reluctant in providing help in her treatment and thereby petitioner has committed misconduct. It has been further argued that since the serious charges levelled against the petitioner have been found fully proved, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the inquiry report in detail, has passed the punishment order on 24.6.2021, therefore there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the punishment order. It has also been argued that the Appellate Authority has considered all the facts and grounds raised by the petitioner in her appeal and thereafter has rejected the appeal. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 has concluded her arguments by contending that the punishment order as well as the appellate order do not suffer from any infirmity therefore, no interference is required by this Court. 20. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 21. I find that charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25.3.2021. Petitioner submitted her reply to the charge-sheet on 3.4.2021. 20. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 21. I find that charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25.3.2021. Petitioner submitted her reply to the charge-sheet on 3.4.2021. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer without fixing any date, time and place for holding oral inquiry, straightaway has submitted inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 21.6.2021. I also find that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 mandates the Inquiry Officer to follow the procedure prescribed therein. As per procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, the Inquiry Officer, after receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, has to fix date, time and place for holding oral inquiry. The Inquiry Officer has to record evidence of the witnesses produced in support of the charges and the delinquent employee is also to be provided opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The Inquiry Officer is also under obligation to provide opportunity to the delinquent employee to produce witnesses in his defence. 22. I find that in the case of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 though it was mandatory for him. The Inquiry Officer, without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 straightaway has submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 21.6.2021. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 has considered the provisions of the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 and has held that the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 is mandatory and if the said procedure is not followed, then the inquiry stands vitiated and punishment order, based on the said inquiry, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are extracted as under:- 26. The first inquiry report is vitiated also on the ground that the inquiry officers failed to fix any date for the appearance of the respondent to answer the charges. Rule 7(x) clearly provides as under: "7. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are extracted as under:- 26. The first inquiry report is vitiated also on the ground that the inquiry officers failed to fix any date for the appearance of the respondent to answer the charges. Rule 7(x) clearly provides as under: "7. (x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant." 27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-Rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the Government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the enquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the enquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. Since the Government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the enquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. 28. An Inquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. 24. This Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 4004 has considered the provisions of the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 and has held that the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 is mandatory and where the said procedure is not followed by the Inquiry Officer, the inquiry stands vitiated. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are extracted as under:- 22. The Division Bench of this Court after considering the catena of judgments on the issue of holding of departmental/ disciplinary proceedings in the judgment dated 28.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.34093 (S/B) of 2018 (State of U.P. and Others Vs. Deepak Kumar and Another) has observed as under:- "It is settled by the catena of judgments that it is the duty of Enquiry Officer to hold ''Regular Enquiry'. Regular enquiry means that after reply to the charge-sheet the Enquiry Officer must record oral evidence with an opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to adduce his evidence in defence. Regular enquiry means that after reply to the charge-sheet the Enquiry Officer must record oral evidence with an opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to adduce his evidence in defence. The opportunity of personal hearing should also be given/awarded to the delinquent employee. Even if the charged employee does not participate/co-operate in the enquiry, it shall be incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte by recording oral evidence. For regular enquiry, it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to fix date, time and place for examination and cross-examination of witnesses for the purposes of proving of charges and documents, relied upon and opportunity to delinquent employee should also be given to produce his witness by fixing date, time and place. After completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer is required to submit its report, stating therein all the relevant facts, evidence and statement of findings on each charge and reasons thereof, and thereafter, prior to imposing any punishment, the copy of the report should be provided to charged officer for the purposes of submission of his reply on the same. The punishment order should be reasoned and speaking and must be passed after considering entire material on record. (vide: Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. 1990 (8) LCD 486; Avatar Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1998 (16) LCD 199; Town Area Committee, Jalalabad Vs. Jagdish Prasad 1979 Vol. I SCC 60; Managing Director, U.P. Welfare Housing Corporation Vs. Vijay Narain Bajpai 1980 Vol. 3 SCC 459; State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal 1998 (6) SCC 651 ; Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1998 SC 117; Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and others AIR 1985 SC 1121 ; Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories 2003 (21) LCD 610; Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570 ; M.M. Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 (33) LCD 836; Moti Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (31) LCD 1319 ; Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (4) ALJ 440. Rules 7, 8 and 9 of Rules 1999 are also relevant". 23. Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570 ; M.M. Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 (33) LCD 836; Moti Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (31) LCD 1319 ; Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (4) ALJ 440. Rules 7, 8 and 9 of Rules 1999 are also relevant". 23. It reveals from the enquiry report that the enquiry officer without waiting for reasonable period for submission of reply by the petitioner and without fixing date, time and place for producing the witnesses by the petitioner/delinquent employee, conducted the enquiry and being so failed to conduct the enquiry in the manner/Principles settled by this Court and as such also the enquiry report is unsustainable. 24. This Court considered the order of punishment dated 31.08.2016 and on due consideration, this Court feels that while passing the order dated 31.08.2016 the disciplinary authority/opposite party no.2 has ignored the fact that (i) enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in utter violation of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1999, (ii) the enquiry officer failed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. It also reflects from the order dated 31.08.2016 that the same is based on enquiry report dated 17.08.2016, which this Court has already held in preceding paragraphs that the same is in violation of Rules of 1999 and Principles of Natural Justice.” 25. This Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2018 SCC Online All 5533 has considered the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 and has held that where the Inquiry Officer did not fix date, time and place for holding inquiry, the inquiry stands vitiated and the punishment order, based on the said inquiry, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are extracted as under:- 27. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The inquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The inquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The inquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The inquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the inquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the inquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the inquiry Officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. 28. In Union of India Vs. H.S. Goel [ (1964) 4 SCR 718 ], it was held : "....The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivably, in some cases, both may be present. There may be cases of no evidence even where the Government is acting bona fide; the said infirmity may also exist where the Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence may be the result of mala fides, but that does not mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will not issued without further proof of mala fides. That is why we are not prepared to accept the learned Attorney-General's argument that sine no mala fides are alleged against the appellant in the present case, no writ of certiorari can be issued in favour of the respondent. That takes us to the merits of the respondent's contention that the conclusion of the appellant that the third charged framed against the respondent has been proved, is based on no evidence. The learned Attorney-General has stressed before us that in dealing with this question, we ought to bear in mind the fact that the appellant is acting with the determination to root out corruption, and so, if it is shown that the view taken by he appellant is a reasonably possible view, this Court should not sit in appeal over that decision and seek to decide whether this Court would have taken the same view or not. This contention is no doubt absolutely sound. The only test which we can legitimately apply in dealing with this part of the respondents case is, is there any evidence on which a finding can be made against the respondent that charge No. 3 was proved against him ? In exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which dealt with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the inquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charges in question is proved against the respondent ? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we are inclined to hold that the respondent's grievance is well-founded because, in our opinion, the finding which is implicit in the appellant's order dismissing the respondent that charge number 3 is proved against him is based on no evidence." 29. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India and Anr. [ (2008) 3 SCC 484 ], this Court held: "17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India and Anr. [ (2008) 3 SCC 484 ], this Court held: "17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The Court exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely -preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality." 30. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [ (1999) 3 SCC 679 ] the Apex Court held as under : "41. We may not be understood to have laid down a law that in all such circumstances the decision of the civil court or the criminal court would be binding on the disciplinary authorities as this Court in a large number of decisions points point that the same would depend upon other factors as well. See e.g. Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 200 and Manager, Reserve Bank of India Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 100 . Each case is, therefore, required to be considered on its own facts. 42. It is equally well settled that the power of judicial review would not be refused to be exercised by the High Court, although despite it would be lawful to do so. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India Bangalore (supra) this Court observed: 39. The findings of the learned Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, are wholly perverse. It apparently posed unto itself wrong questions. It placed onus of proof wrongly upon the appellant. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India Bangalore (supra) this Court observed: 39. The findings of the learned Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, are wholly perverse. It apparently posed unto itself wrong questions. It placed onus of proof wrongly upon the appellant. Its decision is based upon irrelevant factors not germane for the purpose of arriving at a correct finding of fact. It has also failed to take into consideration the relevant factors. A case for judicial review, thus, was made out." 31. In the case of M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88 , the Apex Court held: "....Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with." 32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ministry of Finance and another Vs. S.B. Ramesh [ AIR 1998 SC 853 ] has held that even in ex-parte disciplinary proceedings, wherein, employee is not participated in the departmental enquiry, it is necessary for the Enquiry Officer to fix a date for recording evidence in support of the charges and an intimation of the date so fixed must be communicated to the employee concerned so that the employee concerned may cross-examine the witness. 33. It is well settled law that during enquiry proceeding the principles of natural justice must be followed i.e. the documents relied upon be provided to the charged employee, opportunity to adduce evidence be provided, statement of witnesses for establishing the charges be recorded and opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses be provided, whereas in the present case no such procedure has been followed. The petitioner has not been given an opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner has not been given an opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses. No witnesses have been examined by the enquiry officer in support of the charges, if any, leveled against the petitioner, thus, the entire enquiry proceedings are violated and against the principles of natural justice and Rule, 1999. Therefore, consequential impugned orders are liable to be quashed by this Court.” 26. I have considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this court in the aforesaid judgements and I find that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings against a government servant, procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 is mandatory and if the punishment order is passed without following the said procedure, the same cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Procedure for carrying out disciplinary proceedings provided under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 has been adopted in the matters of teachers working in primary schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board under Rule 5(3) of the Rules of 1973. 27. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and she submitted her reply but thereafter the Inquiry Officer did not fix any date, time and place for holding enquiry and straight away submitted inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. Inquiry Officer did not record evidence of any witness and did not provide opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. Inquiry Officer straight away has submitted inquiry report. 28. I find that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 makes it mandatory for the Inquiry Officer to fix the date, time and place for holding oral inquiry, to record evidence of the witnesses in the presence of the delinquent employee, to provide opportunity to delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and to allow the delinquent employee to produce witnesses in his defence whereas in the case of the petitioner, Inquiry Officer after receipt of reply of petitioner to the charge-sheet, straight away has submitted inquiry report without following the aforesaid procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, as such, the entire inquiry stands vitiated and, therefore, punishment order dated 24.06.2021, based on the said inquiry report, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 29. 29. I find that Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1999 provides that after submission of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority is required to issue a show cause notice annexing therewith copy of inquiry report thereby calling upon the delinquent employee to submit his reply to the findings recorded in the inquiry report and only after considering the said reply, disciplinary authority can pass the punishment order whereas in the present case, disciplinary authority neither issued a show cause notice to the petitioner nor provided her copy of the inquiry report and straightaway has passed the punishment order dated 24.06.2021, as such, it is patently manifest that procedure prescribed under Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1999 has not been followed, accordingly, punishment order dated 24.06.2021 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 30. I also find that the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 6.02.2023 has not considered the grounds taken by the petitioner in respect of violation of Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Rules of 1999, therefore, the order dated 06.02.2023 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 31. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 24.06.2021 and 06.02.2023 are quashed. Consequences to follow. It is open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner from the stage of submission of reply to the charge-sheet.