Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2290 (ALL)

Randhir Singh Duhan v. State Of U. P.

2023-10-06

VIKAS BUDHWAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Randhir Singh Duhan, the petitioner in person as well as Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. The case of the writ petitioner as worded in the present writ petition is that he had served in Indian Army and participated in operation “Hifazat” in Manipur & Nagaland and operation “Blue Star” in Punjab for which he was awarded with prestigious gallantry award, “Sainya Sewa Medal.” However, owing to disability on medical grounds he was discharged from the Indian Army. The writ petitioner further claims to be possessed of Degree of Masters of Arts in English, Political Science, Defence Studies as well as B.Ed., Ph.D, PG Diploma in Human Rights and Mass Communication followed by LL.B and LL.M from reputed University. Post discharge from Indian Army, the writ petitioner claims to have joined U.P. Civil Services (PCS, Executive Branch) and was assigned the work of establishing newly created Districts, Rudrapur (Uttaranchal), Gautam Buddh Nagar (NOIDA), Shamli Tehsil Modi Nagar and Shikarpur. The writ petitioner further claims to have executed projects of construction of National Highway from Muzaffarnagar to Haridwar, Dedicated Freight Railway Corridor from Muzaffarnagar to Haryana Border, Power Grid Station and GAIL Pipeline Project in Western U.P. 3. While the writ petitioner was posted as Additional District Magistrate, Prabuddhnagar, now known as Shamli, he was assigned additional charge of Assistant Custodian under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 by the orders of the Competent Authority so specified therein. With relation to auctioning of 7 Khasras admeasuring 27.112 hectares out of 11 Khasras admeasuring 27.819 hectares situate at Village Bidauli Tehsil Karana, District Prabuddhnagar, a complaint was lodged by one of the resident of Village Bdauli, Tehsil Karana, District Prabuddhnagar (at present Shamli). An inquiry was conducted under the orders of Commissioner Shaharanpur through a joint team of Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and Additional Commissioner (Administration) who tendered a inquiry report on 01.05.2012 noticing irregularities in conduction of auction of the evacuee property. 4. An inquiry was conducted under the orders of Commissioner Shaharanpur through a joint team of Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and Additional Commissioner (Administration) who tendered a inquiry report on 01.05.2012 noticing irregularities in conduction of auction of the evacuee property. 4. As per the writ petitioner, despite the fact that there was no allegation pin pointed against the writ petitioner in the capacity of Additional District Magistrate/Assistant Custodian under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the Secretary/Commissioner, Board of Revenue issued a fresh direction to the District Magistrate, Shamli to hold a fresh inquiry regarding the auction proceedings. The District Magistrate, Shamli by virtue of a communication dated 16.05.2013 addressed to the Commissioner, Shaharanpur Region, Shaharanpur apprised him that already an inquiry had been conducted on 01.05.2012, thus, there is no occasion to conduct fresh inquiry in the matter. Thereafter, the Commissioner and the Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow by virtue of the letter dated 12.06.2014 issued a direction to District Magistrate, Shamli to submit report along with the recommendations with regard to the guilty officers/employees after fixing their responsibilities in the matter of auction of the land of 7 Khasras admeasuring 27.112 hectares out of the land of 11 Khasras admeasuring 27.819 hectares, Village Bidauli, Tehsil Karana, District Prabuddhnagar. In pursuance of the direction of the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow dated 12.06.2014 the District Magistrate, Shamli vide letter dated 13.06.2014 apprised that the auction proceedings were conducted by the then Naib Tehsildar, Sri Srawan Kumar Rathor and the then Additional District Magistrate (F & R), the petitioner. Subsequently, as per the writ petitioner on 21.07.2014 the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, Lucknow addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, Appointment Anubhag-2, Lucknow pointing out the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the writ petitioner in that regard. According to the writ petitioner, thereafter, a charge memorandum was served upon the writ petitioner dated 26.08.2014 containing as many as two charges. The first charge levelled upon the writ petitioner was that while he was posted as Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Assistant Custodian, he conducted auction of the said properties despite the fact that there had been repeal of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 in the year 2005 itself. The first charge levelled upon the writ petitioner was that while he was posted as Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Assistant Custodian, he conducted auction of the said properties despite the fact that there had been repeal of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 in the year 2005 itself. The second charge levelled upon the writ petitioner was to the extent that the auction was conducted de hors the well settled norms which even in fact caused huge losses to the State Government. 5. The writ petitioner on the receipt of the charge sheet dated 26.08.2014 thereafter tendered his objection on 30.04.2015 before the Chief Secretary, Appointment Anubhag-2, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow setting out the case that the departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against him as with regard to the auctions which had been conducted as they stood settled in favour of the highest bidders and post cancellation of the said bids, the highest bidders preferred writ proceedings in Miscellaneous Single No. 6908 of 2014 (Suresh Kumar & 14 Others Vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue U.P. & Others) in which on 05.11.2014 an interim order of status quo has been passed and since the issue involved in the said writ petition pertains to holding of auction and settlement of bids in the capacity of an Additional District Magistrate/Assistant Custodian and the same has been made the basis of the charges levelled in the charge sheet, thus, the enquiry proceedings be stalled till the disposal of the writ petition pending before the Court. 6. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that one Sri Tazveer Zafar Ali, Commissioner Shaharanpur Mandal was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who proceeded to conduct the ex parte enquiry and tendered his inquiry report on 11.06.2015 before the Disciplinary Authority holding the two charges levelled against the writ petitioner proved. On the receipt of the inquiry report dated 11.06.2015 the writ petitioner preferred its objection taking a stand that none of the charges stood proved against him and the enquiry proceedings was illegal as it was not open to conduct inquiry in the wake of the fact that the issue in question which was subject matter of inquiry proceedings is engaging attention in the pending writ petition. 7. 7. However, according to the writ petitioner, the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., first respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned punishment order dated 23.10.2017 whereby the writ petitioner has been dismissed from services. 8. Questioning the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the first respondent, Additional Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 9. The writ petition was entertained by this Court on 20.02.2018 while seeking response from the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents sworn by the Joint Secretary, Appointment Department, Government of U.P. dated 16.07.2018 to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed which is also responded by the respondents. 10. As per the writ petitioner who had appeared in person, he against the order dated 23.10.2017 dispensing with his services preferred a review/revision before the Additional Chief Secretary (Appointment), U.P., Lucknow on 06.12.2017 which came to be rejected on 03.11.2022. An amendment application was preferred challenging the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the first respondent in review/revision which has also been allowed. 11. Sri Randhir Singh Duhan, petitioner in person submits that the order dated 23.10.2017 and 03.11.2022 passed by the first respondent, Additional Chief Secretary, U.P., Lucknow cannot be sustained for a single moment particularly in view of the fact that the entire inquiry proceedings alleged to have been conducted by the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice as no departmental inquiry worth consideration has been conducted before imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal of the services of the writ petitioner. Sri Randhir Singh Duhan, petitioner in person has sought to contend that the writ petitioner herein is a Government Servant being the member of the U.P. Civil Services (PCS, Executive Branch), thus, for conduction of the inquiry there exists a complete set of rules by the name and style of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. According to Sri Randhir Singh Duhan, petitioner in person the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been enacted under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and a complete procedure is contemplated for holding departmental inquiry in case of major penalties. According to Sri Randhir Singh Duhan, petitioner in person the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been enacted under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and a complete procedure is contemplated for holding departmental inquiry in case of major penalties. He refers to Section 7 of the 1999 Rules so as to contend that in the matter of imposition of major penalty, it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to not only issue and serve a charge sheet containing the allegation sought to be levelled but post appointment of an Inquiry Officer date, time and venue is to be fixed for holding oral inquiry so as to enable the delinquent to appear before the Inquiry Officer in order to cross examine the witnesses who are the authors of the documents which have been put to service to bring home the charge. 12. Submission of Sri Randhir Singh Duhan petitioner in person is that in the present case though a charge memorandum was served upon the writ petitioner dated 26.08.2014 containing two charges and the writ petitioner submitted its objection regarding conduction of the inquiry proceedings on 30.04.2015 on the premise that since with relation to the allegations of holding of auctions of the demised properties the highest bidders have already preferred writ petition being Misc. Single No. 6908 of 2014 (Suresh Kumar & 14 Others Vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue U.P. & Others) in which an order of status quo had been passed on 05.11.2014 and the matter is sub-judice, the inquiry be stalled till the disposal of the said proceedings, but without passing any order on the objection raised by the writ petitioner on 30.04.2015, the Inquiry Officer conducted the ex parte inquiry without fixing the time, date and venue and proceeded to hold the writ petitioner guilty without giving him sufficient opportunity to cross examine not only the material witnesses but also to put forward his stand. He, thus, submits that the impugned punishment order be set aside. 13. Sri Randhir Singh Duhan, petitioner in person has sought to rely upon the judgments in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others (2009) 2 SCC 570 , State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010 (2) SCC 772 , Kaptan Singh Vs. 13. Sri Randhir Singh Duhan, petitioner in person has sought to rely upon the judgments in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others (2009) 2 SCC 570 , State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010 (2) SCC 772 , Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (105) ALR 377, Ram Gopal Lodhi Vs. State of U.P. 2023 (8) ADJ 246 . 14. On merits the petitioner in person has submitted that it is not a case wherein the writ petitioner had proceeded with the auction on his wishes as the entire proceedings for conducting auction was as per the dictates, approvals and the orders passed by the Superior Authorities. In order to substantiate the same Sri Randhir Singh Duhan, petitioner in person has sought to argue that on 21.02.2012 a notification/advertisement/gazette was issued by the Collector, Shamli for the sale of total 11 plots situate in 6 or 7 villages of the district in the Village Bidauli, Tehsil Karana, District Shamli. The date of the auction was fixed on 25.02.2012 and the same was published in National Newspapers as well as local edition. According to the writ petitioner the general public was informed also through the Village Pradhan, Block Development Officers, Executive Officers/Nagar Palika that the auction was to be held on 25.02.2012. Even newspaper/ advertisement publication was made on 23.02.2012 in local newspaper “Punjab Kesari” and widely circulated newspaper “Hindustan”. As per the writ petitioner large number of persons participated in the auction conducted on 25.02.2012 as various bids was submitted in the aforesaid auction. On 02.03.2012 the District Magistrate issued a communication to the petitioner that since on the date of the auction, the Model Code of Conduct was in operation, therefore, certain persons were unable to carry large amount of money in order to present their bids in the auction scheduled on 25.02.2012, thus, another opportunity be afforded to the bidders while fixing auction on a subsequent date. As per the writ petitioner, he thereafter issued notices to the unauthorized occupants in possession of the plots in question on 02.03.2012 itself and directed them to be present and deposit their money in cash or bank draft on 09.03.2012 at 3:00 P.M. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that on 07.03.2012 the District Magistrate addressed a communication to the Commissioner, Shaharanpur bringing to its knowledge the fact that the auction proceedings were held on 25.02.2012 and on the basis of the certain representations made by the persons who were unable to participate in the aforesaid auction a fresh auction date had been fixed on 09.03.2012 granting opportunity to the general public including the unauthorized occupants to deposit money on any working day either by cash or bank draft. 15. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the District Magistrate, Shaharanpur on 07.03.2012 issued a communication to the Commissioner, Shaharanpur Region, Shaharanpur apprising the fact that on 04.03.2012 a fresh advertisement was published in newspaper (Dainik Jagran) apprising the general public about the holding of the auction on 09.03.2012. It has been further pleaded that the fresh auction was held on 09.03.2012 and all the plots in auction fetched price at the rate of Rs. 17.01 lacs per hectare and Rs. 21 lacs per hectare respectively against the market value of Rs. 16 lacs fixed by the Collector, Shamli. So much so, according to the writ petitioner, the aforesaid auction proceedings was brought to the attention of the Commissioner, Shaharanpur by the District Magistrate, Shamli through its report dated 09.03.2012 and the District Magistrate accorded its approval to the said auction proceedings on 13.03.2012 and ultimately on approval/sanction of the Collector, Shamli, the writ petitioner issued a sale letter/sale certificate to the successful bidders on 16.03.2012 in that regard. 16. In a nutshell, the submission of the petitioner in person is that there have been compliance of each and every provision of law for holding auction and further approval/sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority in the hierarchy and it was within the knowledge of the functionaries of the State Government that the auction is being conducted. Submission is that the impugned orders cannot be sustained even on merits also. 17. Submission is that the impugned orders cannot be sustained even on merits also. 17. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General who appears for the official respondents while countering the submission of the petitioner in person has sought to argue that the orders which are being subject matter of challenge needs no interference in the present proceedings. He submits that post issuance and service of the charge sheet dated 26.08.2014 the writ petitioner did not submit his reply to the charge sheet and rather to the contrary he attempted to evade the departmental proceedings on the pretext that the matter is sub-judice and pending before the Writ Court. Submission of the learned Additional Advocate General is that the issue which is engaging attention in the pending writ petition is completely different as the Writ Court was occasioned to consider the rights of the highest bidder whose claims have been found to be successful in the bid, however, the departmental proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner is regarding the misconduct committed by him while posted as Additional District Magistrate/Assistant Custodian. Submission is that once the writ petitioner avoided participation in inquiry and did not give its reply to the charge sheet then no fault whatsoever can be attributed upon either the Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority. 18. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the charges levelled upon the writ petitioner are grave and serious in nature and they exposed the writ petitioner for the extreme penalty of dismissal from services as despite being aware about the fact that the provisions of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 stood repealed then to the writ petitioner had proceeded with the auction which cannot be said to be an act of innocence as the writ petitioner being the member of the Civil Services is supposed to act in conformity with law and cannot plead ignorance of law. 19. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the entire auction has been tailored in such a manner so as to confer benefit to particular bidders and the writ petitioner has conducted the said auction in such a manner so as to cause loss to the State Government. 20. 19. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the entire auction has been tailored in such a manner so as to confer benefit to particular bidders and the writ petitioner has conducted the said auction in such a manner so as to cause loss to the State Government. 20. In rejoinder, the petitioner in person has argued that, in case, the Disciplinary Authority or the Inquiry Officer was not satisfied with the stand taken by the writ petitioner as recited in the objection/letter dated 30.04.2015 then at least the writ petitioner could have been apprised and informed to be present on a particular date for holding inquiry in that regard. He further submits that a valuable right to appear in the inquiry proceedings and to set forth his stand and to substantiate the fact that he is innocent has been deprived with. 21. Before venturing into the tenability of the arguments of the rival parties, it would be apposite to notice the relevant statutory provisions of law as well as the documents which are germane for deciding the issue in question. Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.- “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. (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 evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same along with oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet. (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 evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same along with oral evidence, 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, along with 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. After recording the aforesaid evidence, 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. After recording the aforesaid evidence, 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 witness 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.” 22. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 23. Undisputedly, the writ petitioner is a member of U.P. Civil Services (PCS, Executive Branch) who at the time of the alleged misconduct which became the basis of holding of the Disciplinary Inquiry culminating into passing of the order was posted as Additional District Magistrate/Assistant Custodian under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. So far as the holding of departmental inquiry is concerned the same stands regulated under the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is also not in dispute that with regard to certain acts and omissions which are alleged to have been committed by the writ petitioner while holding the post of Additional District Magistrate/ Assistant Custodian and posted in District Prabuddhnagar now Shamli, is relatable to auctioning of land of 7 Khasras admeasuring 27.112 hectares out of 11 Khasras admeasuring 27.819 hectares. Records reveal that under the orders of the Secretary/Commissioner, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow an inquiry was directed to be conducted pursuant whereto on 01.05.2012 and inquiry report was submitted by a committee comprising of Additional Commissioner (Administration) and Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in respect to certain technical irregularities committed during the course of auction of the said plots of land. Further, being not satisfied with the said inquiry report, the Secretary/Commissioner, Board of Revenue issued a fresh direction to the Commissioner, Shaharanpur and DM Shamli to hold a fresh inquiry in the matter of said auction pursuant whereto the District Magistrate, Shamli by virtue of a communication dated 16.05.2013 informed the Commissioner, Shaharanpur Region, Shaharanpur that in the wake of the fact that already an inquiry report had been submitted on 01.05.2012 earlier so there is no requirement to hold fresh inquiry. According to the writ petitioner, a demi official letter dated 12.06.2014 was issued by the Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue to the District Magistrate and Commissioner, Shaharanpur Region, Shaharanpur requiring him to submit a report with respect to employees/officers who were guilty in conducting the auction proceedings and in pursuance thereof on 13.06.2014, a letter has been issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Shamli wherein the erstwhile Naib Tehsildar as well as the writ petitioner who was the Additional District Magistrate/Assistant Custodian were held to be responsible in committing technical irregularities while approving/sanctioning of the auction proceedings. This led to issuance of the charge sheet dated 26.08.2014. 24. So far as the charge sheet dated 26.08.2014 is concerned the same contains two charges firstly, that the writ petitioner conducted the auction on 25.02.2012 while holding the post of Additional District Magistrate/Assistant Custodian with respect to 7 Khasras admeasuring 27.112 hectares out of 11 Khasras admuesuring 27.819 hectares despite the fact that during the said period there was ongoing elections of the Lok Sabha, 2012 and a notification to the said effect was also issued and there was a repeal of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 by virtue of the notification of the Ministry of Law and Justice dated 06.09.2005, being Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act No. 13 of 2005 but the writ petitioner continued with the auction which was illegal. In order to substantiate the said charges as many as 6 material exhibits were sought to be relied upon. In order to substantiate the said charges as many as 6 material exhibits were sought to be relied upon. With the regard to charge no. 2, allegation was levelled to the extent that the auction was conducted against the rules and the norms in such a manner so as to confer benefits on certain persons and the duration of holding the auction giving time to the prospective bidders was reduced resulting to loss of revenue to the State Government. A material exhibit being the letter of the Commissioner, Shaharanpur Region, Shaharanpur dated 03.05.2012 was sought to be relied upon. It is the stand of the State respondents that despite the fact that the charge sheet containing two charges was served upon the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner did not tender its reply, however, for the very first time on 29.12.2014 the writ petitioner sought furnishing of certain documents which were 6 in number. The said documents as demanded by the writ petitioner by virtue of its letter dated 29.12.2014 was furnished to the writ petitioner on 06.04.2015 but again the writ petitioner did not tender its reply, so on 21.04.2015 a week's further time was granted to the writ petitioner to submits its reply to the charge sheet and thereafter, the writ petitioner tendered its reply on 30.04.2015 before the Chief Secretary, Niyukti-2, Uttar Pradesh Shasan for stalling the inquiry proceedings in the wake of the fact that the bidders had already challenged the cancellation of the auction proceedings in the writ petition, Misc. Single No. 6908 of 2014 (Suresh Kumar & 14 Others Vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue U.P. & Others). 25. In a nutshell, it is the case of the State respondents that each and every document which was being sought to be relied upon in order to bring home the charges was furnished to the writ petitioner but the writ petitioner did not submit its point/parawise reply to the specific allegations. 25. In a nutshell, it is the case of the State respondents that each and every document which was being sought to be relied upon in order to bring home the charges was furnished to the writ petitioner but the writ petitioner did not submit its point/parawise reply to the specific allegations. It is also being claimed by the respondents that since the writ petitioner did not tender its to the charge sheet and only intended to forestall the inquiry proceedings which was not permissible, thus, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry, however, the writ petitioner did not participate in the inquiry proceedings, thus, the Inquiry Officer had no option but to hold the writ petitioner guilty on the basis of the case of the prosecution and the documents available on record. It has also come on record that the copy of the inquiry report dated 11.06.2015 holding the writ petitioner guilty with respect to both the charges along with the show cause notice was served upon the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner thereafter, tendered its reply to the same on 01.08.2005 that none of the charges stood proved against him and he was innocent. However, the Additional Chief Secretary, Lucknow by virtue of the order dated 23.10.2017 after getting concurrence from the U.P. Public Service Commission on 21.09.2017 dispensed with the services of the writ petitioner. 26. Now, a question arises as to whether there had been any infraction of the rules with regard to conducting inquiry with respect of imposition of major punishment. 27. The crucial question which arises in the present case is as to whether there has been strict compliance of the provisions of Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules or not. In order to answer the said question, this Court has made a deeper scrutiny of the record. In paragraph No. 31 to 34 of the writ petition specific averments have been made that no oral inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer as no date, time or venue was fixed. The Paragraph No. 31 to 34 of the writ petition has been replied in para 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents. In paragraph No. 31 to 34 of the writ petition specific averments have been made that no oral inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer as no date, time or venue was fixed. The Paragraph No. 31 to 34 of the writ petition has been replied in para 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents. In the counter affidavit itself, it has been recited that; (a) charge sheet was made available to the delinquent officer on 30.09.2014; (b) the evidence demanded by the delinquent was sent to the Delinquent Officer vide letter dated 06.04.2015 from the office of the Inquiry Officer; (c) reminder dated 21.04.2015 was served upon the Delinquent Officer with a direction to submit the reply to the charge sheet, but no reply was submitted by him and unnecessary correspondences were being made to the Government forwarding the copy of the same to the Inquiry Officer; (d) the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the correspondences made by the Government Employee to the Government on 30.04.2015, a copy of which was forwarded to the Inquiry Officer, investigated the charges made against the Delinquent Officer and found the charges to be proved/true; (e) on the basis of the charges found to be proved/true in the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Government vide letter dated 23.06.2015 sought representation from the petitioner, which was received vide letter dated 01.08.2015 to the petitioner; (f) on the basis of the facts, mentioned in the representation of the petitioner, a report was called from Board of Revenue, which was received vide letter dated 04.01.2017. 28. In the entire counter affidavit filed by the respondents there is no recital to the fact as to whether the writ petitioner was informed regarding time, date and venue for holding oral inquiry. Rather to the contrary, it is the stand of the respondents that since the writ petitioner did not tender its reply to the charge sheet and all the documents which the delinquent sought were furnished, thus, in absence of any participation of the delinquent, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and held the writ petitioner guilty on the basis of the documents available on record. 29. 29. Another issue which arises is as to whether in absence of any participation by the delinquent or any demand made by it for holding oral inquiry it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to hold oral inquiry or not. 30. Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules which regulates the procedure of holding the departmental inquiry came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) wherein in Paras 26 to 30 it was held 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 in spite 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 a inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry 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 b charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry 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. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry 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. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry 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.” 31. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kaptan Singh (supra) had the occasion to consider the said issue wherein in paras 8, 9 and 11 this Court while interpreting Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules held as under:- “8. The contention of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that as the petitioner did not state in his reply that he wanted any personal hearing nor did he mention the name of any person whom he wanted to examine or cross-examine, therefore, the Enquiry Officer prepared the enquiry report and submitted the same before the State Government. The contention of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that as the petitioner did not state in his reply that he wanted any personal hearing nor did he mention the name of any person whom he wanted to examine or cross-examine, therefore, the Enquiry Officer prepared the enquiry report and submitted the same before the State Government. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel contends that sufficient compliance of the rules of procedure as prescribed under law has been made for imposing major punishment and principles of natural justice were duly adhered to. 9. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Even if the delinquent employee does not request for personal hearing the burden of proving the charges normally being upon the department, the enquiry officer was under obligation to fix a date for such enquiry, with information to the delinquent and to conduct enquiry wherein he was required to examine documentary as well as oral evidence, if any, in support of the charges. Even if the delinquent employee did not participate in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was duty bound to discharge his obligation as an Enquiry Officer of ascertaining the truth in respect of the charges levelled against him, on the basis of evidence, as to whether the same are proved against him or not. Even if the delinquent does not demand personal hearing or does not give the names of witnesses with brief synopsis of points on which he wishes to examine or cross-examine the witnesses, the Inquiry Officer is not absolved from fixing a date of enquiry, with intimation to the delinquent and if he does not appear on the date fixed to either adjourn the enquiry to some other date or to proceed ex parte, as he deems fit. In either eventuality, he is required to hold inquiry, if delinquent is present, in his presence, if he is absent, ex parte. If oral evidence is referred in the charge-sheet, same is required to be recorded/examined, if not, even then the documentary evidence is required to be examined in the light of the charges for ascertaining the truth in respect thereof. If oral evidence is referred in the charge-sheet, same is required to be recorded/examined, if not, even then the documentary evidence is required to be examined in the light of the charges for ascertaining the truth in respect thereof. The delinquent is also entitled to be intimated the date for oral enquiry, wherein the Inquiry Officer should confront the delinquent with the charges and the evidence in support thereof, put relevant queries to him, elicit and record his replies/ response in respect thereof. Such oral enquiry is necessary as it gives an opportunity, to the delinquent to explain his conduct and to the Inquiry Officer to have a better perspective of the controversy, as, it is not always possible to discern the truth from written replies and documents which may not necessarily convey the complete truth. Even where the delinquent does not dispute the veracity of the documentary evidence, oral enquiry is necessary as he may still have an explanation to offer. 11. The Rules of 1999 also require the Inquiry Officer to hold an enquiry into the charges except where the delinquent admits the charges (Rule 7vi), in such an eventuality, he can submit a report straight away. As per sub-rule (iv) and (x) of Rule 7 if the delinquent does not file his written statement or does not appear, the Investigating Officer shall proceed ex parte. Where he files the written statement and denies the charges, as in the instant case, it shall proceed as per Rule 7(vii) and the following sub-rules.” 32. Recently, in the case of Ram Gopal Lodhi (supra) a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Paras 11 and 13 observed as under:- “11. It is not disputed at bar that during course of enquiry, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. The enquiry officer did not conduct any oral hearing. The documents relied on by the enquiry officer were not proved by examining any witness and no opportunity to examine or cross-examine the witnesses of the enquiry was given to the petitioner. Even after submission of the enquiry report, copy of the report was not given to the petitioner. The enquiry officer did not conduct any oral hearing. The documents relied on by the enquiry officer were not proved by examining any witness and no opportunity to examine or cross-examine the witnesses of the enquiry was given to the petitioner. Even after submission of the enquiry report, copy of the report was not given to the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Moti Ram (supra) has held that a proper opportunity must be afforded to the Government servant at the stage of enquiry after the charge-sheet is supplied to the delinquent employee as well as at the stage when punishment is about to be imposed on him. It has also been held that an oral enquiry is must whether employee demands it or not. Relevant para 8, 9 and 17 are extracted below : "In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan; AIR 1961 SC 1623 ; State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another; (1998) 6 SCC 651 and State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 , the Apex Court has emphasized that a proper opportunity must be afforded to a Government servant at the stage of enquiry, after the charge-sheet is supplied to the delinquent as well as at the second stage when punishment is about to be imposed on him. In State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh (supra), the Apex Court has enumerated some of the basic principles regarding conducting the departmental inquiries and consequences in the event, if these basic principles are not adhered to, the order is to be quashed. The principles enunciated are reproduced herein : (a) The enquires must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (b) If an officer is a witness to any of the incident which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on the report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (c) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. A Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. [2003](21) LCD 610] held that after a charge-sheet is given to the employee an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date so fixed the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence. Thereafter the employer must adduce his evidence first. The reason for this principle is that the charge-sheeted employee should not only know the charges against him but should also know the evidence against him so that he can properly reply to the same. The person who is required to answer the charge must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination, as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him." XXXXX Even, if we assume that most of the charges have been admitted by the petitioner in his reply, but still there are some charges which are to be proved against him. For this purpose also, petitioner has to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before submission of enquiry report. In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him, as has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh (supra). Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him, as has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh (supra). Further, the person who is required to answer the charge must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination, as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him, as has been held by this Court in the case of Radhey Kant Khare (supra). While entertaining the writ petition, this Court stayed the impugned order, by means of order dated 29.10.1999. 13. In the aforesaid judgment of Vinod Kumar it has further held that after charge-sheet is given to the employee, an oral enquiry is must. Relevant para 24 is extracted below: A Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. [2003](21) LCD 610] held that after a charge-sheet is given to the employee an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date so fixed the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence. Thereafter the employer must adduce his evidence first. The reason for this principle is that the charge-sheeted employee should not only know the charges against him but should also know the evidence against him so that he can properly reply to the same. The person who is required to answer the charge must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination, as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him.” 33. The person who is required to answer the charge must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination, as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him.” 33. A specific query was raised to Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General who appears for the State respondents whether the writ petitioner (delinquent employee) was asked about his willingness for holding of enquiry in the matter of disciplinary proceedings being initiated against him, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General has made a statement at bar that there is nothing on record to suggest that either any oral inquiry was conducted or any opportunity was accorded to the writ petitioner/delinquent officer requiring him to show its willingness for holding of oral inquiry. This Court further finds from the inquiry dated 11.06.2015 that only on the basis of the charge sheet and the communication of the writ petitioner dated 30.04.2015, the Inquiry Officer held the writ petitioner guilty of the said charges which become the basis for passing of the order impugned in the writ petition. 34. Importantly, also, the inquiry report does not recite that the documents which were relied upon in order to being home the charges were proved by the prosecution witnesses. It is a cardinal principle of law in service jurisprudence that once the delinquent denies the charges then it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the charges which have been encapsuled in the charge sheet itself. Here, in the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken, thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 35. Nonetheless, the inquiry report dated 11.06.2015 is also not in adherence with the provisions contained under the 1999 Rules as the law is well settled that the Inquiry Officer performs quasi-judicial functions and the inquiry report should contain reasons in coming to the conclusions. 36. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 14 and 23 has observed as under:- “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. 36. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 14 and 23 has observed as under:- “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry 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 contends thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ispe dixit as also surmices and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.” 37. Interestingly, Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules provides for variety of penalties; ranging from minor to major and under the heading of major penalties withholding of increments with cumulative effect, reduction to a lower post or a grade or time scale or to a lower stage in time scale, removal and dismissal are specified. Interestingly, Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules provides for variety of penalties; ranging from minor to major and under the heading of major penalties withholding of increments with cumulative effect, reduction to a lower post or a grade or time scale or to a lower stage in time scale, removal and dismissal are specified. Though, it is the case of the writ petitioner that he has conducted auction pursuant to the directions and the approvals of the Higher Authority emanating from the fact that on 21.02.2012 a notification/advertisement/gazette was issued/published by the Collector, Shamli for the sale of the plots in question fixing 25.02.2012 as the date while making wide publicity in the newspapers and in pursuance thereof on 25.02.2012 a large number of persons participated in the auction, consequent to the direction of the District Magistrate dated 02.03.2012, since on the date of the aforesaid auction the Model Code of Conduct was already in operation which created a situation whereby certain bidders were unable to carry large amounts of money to present their bids so circumstances arose for fixation of another date consequent thereto another date was fixed on 09.03.2012 and on 07.03.2012 the District Magistrate issued a communication to the Commissioner, Shaharanpur bringing to its knowledge that the auction proceedings was held on 25.02.2012 and on the basis of representations of certain persons who were unable to participate in the said auction a fresh date was fixed and the auction was kept open from 2nd March, 2012 inviting more money while fixing it on 09.03.2012. Further as per the writ petitioner, the auction proceedings was held on 09.03.2012 which fetched price of Rs. 21.0 lacs per hectare against the market value was 16 lacs and a report to the said extent was also submitted to the Commissioner, Shaharanpur along with the approval of the District Magistrate dated 13.03.2012 and sale certificate was issued to the successful bidders on 16.03.2012. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that in view of the various circulars issued by the Central Government and the provisions contained under the General Clauses Act mere repealing of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 by virtue of the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 would not affect particularly in view of the fact that the auction proceedings were pending and continuing since 1965, 1967, 2000 and 2011. 38. 38. Thus, in the opinion of the Court a fair and reasonable chance to the petitioner (Delinquent Officer) to place its stand in order to convince the inquiry officer that he is not guilty was denied as in the eventuality oral inquiry would have been done while giving opportunity to the writ petitioner (delinquent employee) to participate in the inquiry he could have demonstrated that he was innocent and the findings of the Inquiry Officer would have been changed that too in his favour. Since it is not the case of the respondents that despite the opportunity being accorded to the writ petitioner to appear in the inquiry he did not participate, thus, there was no reason for holding oral inquiry, this Court is of the opinion that the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated. 39. Records further reveal that in pursuance of another charge sheet dated 02.07.2014 as many as 11 charges were levelled upon the writ petitioner and post submission of the inquiry report the appointing authority proceeded to pass an order dated 12.10.2017 reverting the writ petitioner in the Pay Band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 Grade Pay 5400. Subsequently, with relation to the charge sheet dated 26.08.2014 the order impugned dated 23.10.2017 had been passed whereby writ petitioner's services had been dispensed with. The writ petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition preferred a review/revision application before the first respondent on 06.12.2017 against the order dated 12.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 which has been dismissed by virtue of order dated 03.11.2022. Since there is no challenge made to the order dated 12.10.2017 reverting the writ petitioner to the Pay Band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 Grade Pay 5400, thus, this Court is not addressing the said issue. 40. Now a question arises that once this Court has come to the conclusion that the inquiry proceedings stand vitiated on the ground that the same is in violation of Rule 7 of 1999 Rules then what would be the further course of action is to be adopted in that regard. There are two options available to this Court, firstly, to set aside the order of punishment and grant reinstatement to the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits and, secondly, to remit the matter back for conducting fresh inquiry from the stage when the defect occurred. 41. There are two options available to this Court, firstly, to set aside the order of punishment and grant reinstatement to the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits and, secondly, to remit the matter back for conducting fresh inquiry from the stage when the defect occurred. 41. In order to arrive to the said conclusion this Court has to bear in mind the seriousness of the charges sought to be levelled and the nature of the defect as to whether it is curable or not. 42. Here, in the present case this Court finds that after issuance of the charge sheet dated 23.06.2014, post appointment of the Inquiry Officer though documents are claimed to have been furnished to the writ petitioner on his request but the writ petitioner was neither accorded opportunity to participate in the inquiry nor any date, time and venue was fixed for conducting oral inquiry as mandated under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that since it is the stand of the writ petitioner that he superannuated on 31.01.2017 and as per the writ petitioner himself on the date of issuance of the charge sheet dated 26.08.2014 he was under suspension, thus, looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate that inquiry be conducted from the stage of issuance and service of the charge sheet within the time bound period. 43. The view of the Court is further fortified from a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 716 of 2022 C/M Muslim Inter College and Others Vs. 43. The view of the Court is further fortified from a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 716 of 2022 C/M Muslim Inter College and Others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others decided on 16.12.2022 wherein the following was observed.- “(28) Applying the principle of law laid down in the series of the judicial pronouncement as noticed above in the present facts of case, an irresistible conclusion stands drawn that for whatever reasons there had been technical defect in holding inquiry proceeding either by way of violation of principle of natural justice i.e. non holding of oral inquiry, denial of furnishing of relevant documents going into the root of the matter, denial of opportunity of cross examination of witnesses, non furnishing of inquiry report and also in flagrant violation of the statutory rules/regulations, then in the cases of setting aside of order of dismissal/removal/termination, the court of law should remit back the proceedings before the disciplinary authority enabling the inquiry officer/committee to conduct fresh disciplinary proceeding from the stage prior to the imposition of punishment and not as a matter of rule grant relief of reinstatement along with consequential benefits including arrears and current salary. It should be left open to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders either to reinstate or place delinquent employee under suspension for the purpose of holding an inquiry and the payment of consequential benefits should be made subject to final out come of the inquiry proceedings.” 44. Accordingly, the writ petition is decided in the following terms; (a) the order dated 23.10.2017 dismissing the writ petitioner from service as well as the order dated 03.11.2022 rejecting the review/revision of the writ petitioner preferred on 06.12.2017 against the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the first respondent, Additional Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow are set aside; (b) the order dated 03.11.2022 rejecting the review/revision preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 12.10.2017 reverting the writ petitioner in the Pay Band of Rs. 15,600-39,1000 Grade Pay 5400 is maintained; (c) consequent to the setting aside of the orders dated 23.10.2017 dismissing the writ petitioner from service as well as the order dated 03.11.2022 insofar as it pertains to reject the review/revision against the order dated 23.10.2017, the matter stands remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for conducting the inquiry against the writ petitioner from the stage of service of the charge sheet dated 26.08.2014; (d) in case, the Disciplinary Authority proposes to hold inquiry then the same shall be conducted and concluded within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order by either of the parties strictly in accordance with law as per the rules governing the field and after affording opportunity to the writ petitioner (delinquent officer); (e) the writ petitioner shall render full cooperation in the enquiry proceedings; (f) since the writ petitioner stood superannuated on 31.01.2017, thus, there is no question of reinstatement of the writ petitioner, however, the grant of consequential benefits including arrears of salary and other allied benefits shall be subject to the outcome and the fate of the inquiry proceedings; (g) in case, the writ petitioner was not paid arrears of subsistence allowance that the same be paid to him as per rules. 45. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands partly allowed.