Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 933 (ALL)

Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U. P.

2024-04-01

J.J.MUNIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : The petitioner, a Class IV employee, a Peon in the Establishment of the District Treasury, Budaun, is aggrieved by an order dated 31.07.1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun, terminating his services after disciplinary proceedings, and the appellate order dated 13.02.2014, passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, dismissing his departmental appeal and affirming the order of the District Magistrate. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee (Peon) with the District Treasury, Budaun in the year 1975 by the District Magistrate, Budaun. He was, later on, confirmed in service. Upon the establishment of a sub-treasury at Ujhani, District Budaun, the petitioner was transferred from headquarters to the sub-treasury at Ujhani on 09.12.1989. It is the petitioner’s case that after rendering a few years of service at Ujhani, the Sub Treasury Officer[‘STO’ for short] passed an order dated 08.11.1991, providing that the petitioner will discharge all duties at the sub-treasury relating to drawing up of accounts, pension vouchers, clearance of bills, all of which he would do as in the past, under the STO’s oral directions. The petitioner says he was a Peon, but the STO illegally and arbitrarily, passed the order dated 08.11.1991, directing him to discharge the duties of a Clerk. It is the petitioner’s case that the STO threatened the petitioner that his services would be terminated if he did not carry out his directions, detailed in the order dated 08.11.1991. The petitioner says that the order dated 08.11.1991 could never have been made by the STO, because it was illegal to take the work of a Clerk from a Class IV employee. 3. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Sub Treasury Officer, Budaun with a request that though a Peon, he had been directed to undertake the duties of a Clerk, under the oral directions of the STO; and therefore, if any mistake occurs on the petitioner’s part, he cannot be held responsible, for obvious reasons. The STO, upon coming to know of the letter dated 08.11.1991, passed a further order, which reads : Jh larks"k dqekj feJk pijklh ds izkFkZuk i= fn Œ8-11-1991 ds laCka/k es vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd midks"kkdkj dk;kZy; dh vf/koDrk dks ns[krs gq, esjs ekSf[kd cksyus ij gh lHkh jktdh; dk;Z iwoZ dh Hkakfr jgsaxsA ftldh laEiw.kZ ftEesnkjh midks"kkf/kdkjh m>kuh dh gksxhA Sd/- (Illegible) S.T.O. Ujhani 8-11-91 4. The Treasury Officer, Budaun issued a show-cause notice dated December the 14th, 1991 to the petitioner, saying that the STO vide his memo number 286/ -111/91-92 dated 09.12.1991, had informed the Treasury Officer that the petitioner was absent from duties since the forenoon, without prior information or permission, and that according to the report dated 05.12.1991 received from the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ujhani, the petitioner had collected the scroll for the 4th of December, 1991. The notice further said that the petitioner, along with the scroll, had been handed over all the relative vouchers, but two out of these were missing. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioner was required to explain, within three days, the circumstances in which he was absent from duty and further, to whom did he entrust the missing vouchers. 5. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause vide his reply dated 27.12.1991. In his reply, the petitioner said that on 04.12.1991, he reached the Sub Treasury Office at Ujhani, but a short while later, he fell very sick. He, therefore, made an application for sanction of Casual Leave, which he handed over to the Assistant Accountant, Madan Pal Singh and took leave of him. It was also said that moments after the petitioner had reached the Sub Treasury Office on 04.12.1991, the Bank Peon arrived, carrying the scroll. At that time, the petitioner was the only functionary available at the Sub-Treasury, and therefore, the scroll was accepted by him. This was done particularly in view of the fact that the STO had authorized the petitioner, under his oral directions, to discharge clerical duties, of which, receipt of daily scroll was a part. It was also the petitioner’s defence in the show-cause that after receiving the scroll, he could not look into the number of vouchers, because the STO had instructed him that the scroll comes attached with a small slip from the Bank, which mentions the money deposited and that disbursed on it. This money is entered in the register on a daily basis. If the scroll, the money mentioned in the slip and the bank record register all tally, the petitioner should receive the scroll. The petitioner compared the deposited and the disbursed money figures on the attached slip and received the scroll. This money is entered in the register on a daily basis. If the scroll, the money mentioned in the slip and the bank record register all tally, the petitioner should receive the scroll. The petitioner compared the deposited and the disbursed money figures on the attached slip and received the scroll. In the past also, it was precisely this way that the scroll was being received by the petitioner from the Bank. The STO had never directed the petitioner to account for the voucher numbers, nor did he have any knowledge about the requirement. Whenever the daily scroll was received, it would be placed in a small almirah, that does not have a lock to secure it. The petitioner would place the scroll there and the Assistant Accountant, upon arrival, would take it out and process it. 6. The petitioner’s explanation also said that on 05.12.1991, he sent a leave application to the STO through a friend of his. The petitioner, during this period of time being indisposed, was under the treatment of Dr. Parashari, but there was no relief. Therefore, the petitioner, on 06.12.1991, went to a certain Gangu Vaidh (Pandit Ganga Vallabh Mishra) for his treatment. He addressed his leave application to the STO, Ujhani sent by registered post, bearing number RL-3271 dated 06.12.1991. The said registered cover was delivered to the STO on 07.12.1991, but surprisingly, the STO refused to receive it. This application carried a request for sanction of Casual Leave of five days. Since the petitioner did not get relief from the changed medical treatment that he took, he moved to Mori Nagar, Ghaziabad, where he went to Dr. A.K. Dubey’s Nursing Home. He was treated there from 11.12.1991 to 17.12.1991. A medical certificate was issued in this behalf by Dr. A.K. Dubey. The petitioner sent a leave application by registered post to the STO, Ujhani, annexing therewith the medical certificate. It is not known to the petitioner if the STO received the application by registered post or declined it. Upon his return home, he received a registered cover, bearing P.L. No. 3271. The reply to the show-cause said that his health was severely impaired and he was not in a position to discharge his duties. He made a request that he may be sanctioned medical leave from 18.12.1991 to 08.01.1992. Upon his return home, he received a registered cover, bearing P.L. No. 3271. The reply to the show-cause said that his health was severely impaired and he was not in a position to discharge his duties. He made a request that he may be sanctioned medical leave from 18.12.1991 to 08.01.1992. It was said in the reply that the petitioner, upon reporting at the office, would produce the original medical certificates. 7. On 19.12.1991, the petitioner received an order of his suspension from service pending inquiry passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun. It mentioned a summary of five charges against him. This was followed by the Inquiry Officer issuing a charge-sheet dated 31.01.1992/03.02.1991 to the petitioner, carrying five charges. The petitioner was given fifteen days to submit his reply. The last mentioned charge-sheet was followed by another charge-sheet dated 15.02.1992, also issued by the Inquiry Officer, carrying the same five charges as those in the earlier charge-sheet dated 31.01.1992/03.02.1991. 8. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet dated 31.01.1992/03.02.1992, denying the charges. It is the petitioner’s case that no other document was given to the petitioner, despite several and repeated demands, except the three annexures to the charge-sheet dated 31.01.1992. These were an application dated 08.01.1992 from a certain Tikola Devi and an application by one Bhola Nath dated 05.12.1991/10.01.1992. There was another complaint dated 05.12.1991 annexed to the first charge-sheet, a handwritten document. It is the petitioner’s case that an inquiry into the charges was not being concluded on one hand, and on the other, the petitioner was suffering suspension and paid 50% of his pay towards subsistence allowance. The petitioner, therefore, by his letter dated 20.03.1993, requested the District Magistrate, Budaun to revoke his suspension and permit him to join duties. 9. On 07.04.1993, the Inquiry Officer informed the petitioner that he would appear before the Inquiry Officer on 15.04.1993 at 03:00 p.m., On 15.04.1993, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer, but nothing was done that day. Instead, the Inquiry Officer passed an order, saying that due to his engagement that day in an anti-encroachment drive, he could not take down the statement of the petitioner’s. He further said in his order that until the conclusion of the petitioner’s evidence, the petitioner would remain attached to the Inquiry Officer’s office. Instead, the Inquiry Officer passed an order, saying that due to his engagement that day in an anti-encroachment drive, he could not take down the statement of the petitioner’s. He further said in his order that until the conclusion of the petitioner’s evidence, the petitioner would remain attached to the Inquiry Officer’s office. It is the petitioner’s case that the Inquiry Officer did not record the petitioner’s testimony, nor any further date was fixed, nor the petitioner informed about any date that the Inquiry Officer might have fixed. All of a sudden, the petitioner was surprised to receive a show-cause notice dated 09.07.1993 from the District Magistrate, Budaun saying that a detailed inquiry report dated 06.07.1993 had been submitted by the Inquiry Officer, one K.K. Chaudhary, an Additional District Magistrate at Budaun, where all charges against him were found proved. He was required to show cause and submit his explanation to the Inquiry Report within a period of 45 days by the District Magistrate. The petitioner was not supplied relevant documents and other materials that were referred to in the show cause. Therefore, the petitioner made an applications dated 20.07.1993 and 24.07.1993, demanding relevant copies of documents and further requested time to show-cause, which he prayed, may be suitably extended. No information was then given to the petitioner, nor a reply in answer to his application dated 20.07.1993 and 24.07.1993. The petitioner was also not intimated or informed about any subsequent date and the matter remained pending. 10. The petitioner, after waiting for a substantial period of time, bereft of the copies of documents that he had requested, but never given, submitted his reply dated 03.08.1993 to the show-cause notice dated 09.07.1993. The petitioner was served with the impugned order of termination of service dated 31.07.1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun. It is the petitioner’s case that a perusal of the Inquiry Report would show that no inquiry was ever held, in the sense that no proceedings of inquiry were scheduled, where the Establishment would be required to produce their evidence to prove the charges. It is averred in paragraph No. 26 of the writ petition that no witness was examined and no document produced by the Establishment to prove the charges against the petitioner. It is averred in paragraph No. 26 of the writ petition that no witness was examined and no document produced by the Establishment to prove the charges against the petitioner. It is also averred that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to appear before the Inquiry Officer, nor any relevant document, which he demanded, was supplied to him. The petitioner’s services were terminated without a lawful inquiry being held. 11. The petitioner challenged the impugned order of termination dated 31.07.1993 before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21681 of 1994. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on ground of availability of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under the service rules. The petitioner, accordingly, preferred his appeal under Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999[‘the Rules of 1999’ for short] to the Commissioner of the Division. The Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated 13.02.2014, has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of termination from service passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun. 12. Disillusioned by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 13. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents, dated 16.07.2014, to which, a rejoinder affidavit was filed on 25.07.2016. On 30.11.2023, when the petition came up, it was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved. 14. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Namdev, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 15. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed against the petitioner are much flawed by procedural unfairness, in that, that the inquiry, on the foot of which the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have proceeded to punish the petitioner, is no inquiry at all. Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that in any departmental inquiry, where there is the likelihood of imposition of a major penalty, inquiry proceedings have to be formal in nature. In inquires involving the possible imposition of a major penalty, the Inquiry Officer has to distance himself from the Establishment and convene himself as an impartial Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that in any departmental inquiry, where there is the likelihood of imposition of a major penalty, inquiry proceedings have to be formal in nature. In inquires involving the possible imposition of a major penalty, the Inquiry Officer has to distance himself from the Establishment and convene himself as an impartial Tribunal. It is not that, that the Inquiry Officer can assume the charges to be proof of themselves and hold the delinquent guilty; nor can the delinquent be held guilty by going through the charge-sheet, the delinquent's reply and the documents supplied by the Establishment, annexed to the charge-sheet. At a properly convened inquiry, in all major penalty matters, the Establishment has to be called upon by the Inquiry Officer to prove charges, both by documentary and oral evidence, that is to say, by producing witnesses. The production of witnesses is an imperative in all major penalty matters. Here, nothing of the kind, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has been done and the inquiry has been an extremely informal affair. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Yashwant Singh, the learned Standing Counsel has said that the charges against the petitioner are very serious and involve defalcation of funds of the State by practice of forgery and manipulation of record. He submits that the documents enclosed with the charge-sheet are sufficient by themselves to bring home the charges, which have been held established by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Mr. Singh says that in these circumstances, it is not a case where this Court should disturb the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities. 17. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by parties. A perusal of the Inquiry Report shows that the charges laid against the petitioner involve the payment of a sum of Rs.65,783 due to government pensioners to fictitious persons, leading to defalcation of government funds. A perusal of the Inquiry Report shows that the inquiry proceeded against the former Sub-Treasury Officer, Mahesh Babu Saxena, the Accountant, Tulsi Das, the Sub Treasury Officer Madan Pal and the petitioner, a Peon. A perusal of the Inquiry Report shows that the inquiry proceeded against the former Sub-Treasury Officer, Mahesh Babu Saxena, the Accountant, Tulsi Das, the Sub Treasury Officer Madan Pal and the petitioner, a Peon. It is not the province of this Court to go into the merits of the charges, but we think that we should venture to refer to so much of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, with reference to the crux of the charges, as may enable us to fathom if the inquiry held was one that is procedurally fair and according to the salutary principle governing departmental inquiries, in matters where a major penalty may be imposed. The Inquiry Officer says in support of the charges against the petitioner, that the evidence appearing against him is : ^^1- vki cSad tkdj isa'kuj dks isa'ku dk Hkqxrku djkrs FksA^^ Translated into English, it would read : “You would go over to the bank and facilitate payment of pension to the pensioners.” vki fnuakd 4-12-1992 dks lHkh isa'kuj ds lkFk cSad x, FksAa^^ This would read (translated to English) as follows : “You went along with all the pensioners to the Bank on 04.12.1991.” 18. Now, the two shortlisted matters, hereinabove detailed, and said to be evidence against the petitioner in support of the charges, are, by no means, evidence of any kind. These are facts, or may be, some relevant part of facts that may go to constitute the charges against the petitioner. What has been shortlisted as evidence by the Inquiry Officer is neither documentary nor oral evidence, or any other kind of evidence. It is assertion of facts and nothing more. The Inquiry Officer proceeds to say that the petitioner obstructed the proceedings taken to scrutinize the vouchers and pressurized the Bank Cashier to quickly pay off the pensioners. 19. The petitioner signed the vouchers for the STO, forging his signatures, and upon a repeat objection by the Bank, the petitioner fled the Bank along with the relative voucher and the pensioner. It is recorded that the petitioner himself forges the pension vouchers and if he has any authority from the STO in this behalf, he must produce the same. These and some further remarks in the Inquiry Report are more or less repetition of the charges against the petitioner, the substance of which has been indicated hereinabove. It is recorded that the petitioner himself forges the pension vouchers and if he has any authority from the STO in this behalf, he must produce the same. These and some further remarks in the Inquiry Report are more or less repetition of the charges against the petitioner, the substance of which has been indicated hereinabove. It is then remarked by the Inquiry Officer that in his reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner has denied the charges and said that he has not violated any rule or done any act that may constitute embezzlement. He is a Peon and has not done any monetary transaction. The Inquiry Officer has remarked that the petitioner has blamed the STO, the Accountant and the others charged at the inquiry for the embezzlement and said that he has been made a scapegoat by threatening two pensioners, who moved applications against him. 20. The Inquiry Officer then goes on to remark that answering the evidence against him, the petitioner has said that he never went to the Bank to ensure disbursement of pension to the beneficiaries. The occurrence dated 04.12.1991 is incorrect. He never went to the Bank on the said date, nor did he ask the cashier to quickly pay off the pensioners. The Inquiry Officer has also remarked that the petitioner has said that he has not drawn up any forged vouchers, nor has he drawn up additional syaha, or changed the pensioner’s name in the syaha. The Inquiry Officer goes on to observe that the pensioner, Smt. Tikola Devi, has said in her complaint that the petitioner, on 09.07.2011, after she was paid her pension of Rs.1074, took a sum of Rs.500 in loan and had not repaid her so far. There is also a reference to complaint by another pensioner, Bhola Nath, who too says that a sum of Rs.1800, that he had received in arrears, was taken in loan by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer has recorded that on the basis of details of the forged pension vouchers available on record, the pensioner, Bhola Nath was paid a sum of Rs.1908 on 11.11.1991 and a sum of Rs.1847 on 05.12.1991. The Inquiry Officer has also recorded that the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ujhani had written a letter dated 04.12.1991 to the STO, Ujhani, a copy of which is available on record. The Inquiry Officer has also recorded that the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ujhani had written a letter dated 04.12.1991 to the STO, Ujhani, a copy of which is available on record. It is observed that this letter lays a complaint against the petitioner that he put pressure on the officials of the Bank to pay off pension to an imposter, a man called Rampal, and when the Bank officials refused to pay, asking the STO to come over to the Bank, the petitioner, along with the impostering pensioner, took to their heels. Upon arrival of the STO, it was revealed that the petitioner was attempting to get the pension due to a pensioner by the name Rampal fraudulently, and by that date, the said pensioner’s bill had not yet been passed. This discovery led the matter to be probed, and the embezzlement of a sum of Rs.65,783 came to light, all of which was paid off to bogus pensioners in place of the genuine beneficiaries. There are then findings how all these facts constituting the charges are proved. 21. It is observed that across the length and breadth of the Inquiry Report, one does not find any evidence, documentary or oral, produced before the Inquiry Officer on behalf of the Establishment in a duly convened inquiry. All the findings have been recorded on a presumption that the charges, read together with the documents relied upon by the Establishment, are proof of themselves. The Inquiry Officer has gleaned through the charge-sheet, the petitioner’s reply and the annexed documents, sitting casually during the course of his ordinary duties in the Establishment, and without convening a formal inquiry, fixing a date, time and place, where the Establishment would be first required to produce their evidence, both documentary and oral, to prove the charges against the petitioner. 22. It must be remembered for a salutary principle that in a departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer cannot identify himself with the Establishment or accord any weightage to the charges, merely because some documents are annexed. The Inquiry Officer must start with a clean slate, placing burden upon the Establishment, with which he must distance himself in the role of the Inquiry Officer, and assume that the charges are neither proved nor dispelled. The Inquiry Officer must start with a clean slate, placing burden upon the Establishment, with which he must distance himself in the role of the Inquiry Officer, and assume that the charges are neither proved nor dispelled. He must then require the Establishment to prove the charges by formally producing evidence, documentary and oral, which much include witnesses in a case where a major penalty may be imposed. The witnesses may give testimony of facts constituting the charges and also prove the documents relied upon by the Establishment. The witnesses must then be exposed to the delinquent’s cross-examination. After this stage is over, the delinquent can be called upon to produce evidence in his defence, which, again, can be both documentary and oral. This is a salutary principle, and in this case also, the mandate of Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999. The Inquiry Report, in this case, reveals that after the petitioner denied the charges, the Inquiry Officer did not convene any proceedings of the inquiry, fixing a date, time and venue. He never called upon the Establishment to produce their evidence, which would be done through a Presenting Officer and include both documentary evidence and oral, that is to say, witnesses. This fact, which is otherwise unmistakably discernible from the Inquiry Report, is admitted in paragraph No. 22 of the counter affidavit, where, in answer to paragraph No. 26 of the writ petition, it is averred : 22. That the contents of paragraph 26 of the writ petition are denied. It is stated that when the charge-sheet was given by the City Magistrate then in support thereof all the documents were attached, and he attached the petitioner in his Court till the written statement but he always absconded from his court and did not attend for the statement. It is wrong to say that he was not given the opportunity. 23. This clinches the issue that no evidence, whatsoever, was ever produced by the Establishment, in support of the charges. It is also to be noted that if the petitioner was avoiding appearance before the Inquiry Officer, that did not relieve the Establishment of the burden to prove the charges, which they would have to do even if the inquiry was set down ex-parte. It is also to be noted that if the petitioner was avoiding appearance before the Inquiry Officer, that did not relieve the Establishment of the burden to prove the charges, which they would have to do even if the inquiry was set down ex-parte. The furnishing of opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself does not relieve the Establishment of their own burden to prove the charges by evidence, both documentary and oral, which has not been done in this case at all. 24. It must also be remarked that a perusal of the order dated 15.04.1993 shows that on that date, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer, but the proceedings were adjourned, because the Inquiry Officer was busy with some anti-encroachment drive. What is relevant is that the said date was fixed for recording the petitioner’s evidence. It is surprising that the petitioner’s evidence was scheduled to be recorded on 15.04.1993 by the Inquiry Officer in a proceeding where no evidence was ever produced on behalf of the Establishment; no witness was produced to prove the Establishment’s case. The order dated 15.04.1993 shows the understanding of the Inquiry Officer about the procedure of holding a departmental proceeding, is flawed beyond redemption, for reasons that we have indicated both hereinbefore and hereinafter. 25. The Inquiry Officer has sat back in his office and in the routine of his daily work, as already remarked, shuffled through the charge-sheet, the petitioner’s reply and the documents annexed, which nobody proved or established the truth of, and proceeded to hold the charges proved on a supposition as if the charges were proof of themselves. It appears that the Inquiry Officer assumed that the charges read together with the papers annexed to the charge-sheet were not explained away by the petitioner in his reply, and, therefore, proved. 26. To add to all this is the fact that the nature and the particulars of the charge are such that it was imperative for the Establishment to produce witnesses in the first instance to prove it. If the Establishment had to prove that the petitioner put pressure on Bank officials to pay off pension to one or the other pensioners, or to pay off an imposter, it was necessary to produce officials of the Bank to prove the allegation in the first instance. Nothing of the kind of was done. 27. If the Establishment had to prove that the petitioner put pressure on Bank officials to pay off pension to one or the other pensioners, or to pay off an imposter, it was necessary to produce officials of the Bank to prove the allegation in the first instance. Nothing of the kind of was done. 27. This Court may dare say that the kind of procedure the Inquiry Officer adopted in this case could never be the lawful procedure to be followed in a departmental inquiry, involving the imposition of a major penalty. This kind of procedure could be associated with a preliminary inquiry or a fact-finding inquiry, but not one, which was part of disciplinary proceedings likely to lead to the imposition of major penalty. The principle about the manner in which the inquiry is to be held, where the Establishment bear the burden of producing evidence before the Inquiry Officer, documentary and oral, particularly witnesses, is so well established that it can hardly brook doubt. It is also the mandate of Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999 that this principle, as a salutary one, governing the procedure to be adopted in departmental inquiries involving the likelihood of imposition of a major penalty, is to be followed, is well established, in view of the holding of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 , State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and the Bench decisions of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB)(LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB)(LB) and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB)(LB). 28. The Authorities below have proceeded to pass the impugned orders, punishing the petitioner on the basis of an inquiry that is so procedurally flawed that it is a nullity and no inquiry in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 29. It goes without saying that these orders being flawed on account of procedural infirmities, in the ordinary course of things, would entitle the respondents to proceed afresh with the inquiry from the stage of the charge-sheet. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 29. It goes without saying that these orders being flawed on account of procedural infirmities, in the ordinary course of things, would entitle the respondents to proceed afresh with the inquiry from the stage of the charge-sheet. The only distinguishing feature, perhaps, in this case is that the petitioner was aged 56 years in the year 2014 and would have reached the age of superannuation somewhere in the year 2018. This is a fact which the respondents would bear in mind before electing to pursue fresh proceedings against the petitioner. This Court may not be understood to say that there is any lack of jurisdiction with the respondents in initiating fresh proceedings against the petitioner, but it would now certainly impose some limitations on the punishment that the respondents can award the petitioner in case he is again found guilty. 30. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 31.07.1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun and the Appellate Order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service until the date of his superannuation in the ordinary course. It would be open to the respondents to resume proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet, and if they elect so to do, neither emoluments due to the petitioner until his superannuation nor any part thereof or other post-retiral benefits, to which the petitioner would be entitled upon superannuation, would be payable to him, until final orders are passed. The entitlement of the petitioner to emoluments until the date of his superannuation and his post-retiral benefits would be subject to the outcome of fresh proceedings, if elected to be pursued. If, however, no proceedings afresh are elected to be pursued, the petitioner would be entitled to 50% of his emoluments from the date of the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate until his superannuation, and all other post-retiral benefits would be payable, as if the orders impugned had never been made. 31. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. Let the Registrar (Compliance) communicate this judgment and order to the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly and the District Magistrate, Budaun.