Allahabad HC Imposes 25K Cost On State Govt After Senior Officer Acts As Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority In Same Case

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the State of Uttar Pradesh as a senior State Officer acted as an Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority in case of disciplinary proceedings against an employee.

Single bench of Justice Alok Mathur noted,

“Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla [Secretary Election Anubhag, Lucknow], have acted himself in all the three capacities in the present case as lead to miscarriage of justice and accordingly the entire disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated. The entire exercise will have to be carried out afresh in accordance with law.”

Case Background

It is the petitioner's case that he was serving as Senior Assistant in the Office of District Relation Officer/District Magistrate, Amethi when departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Subsequently, he was placed under suspension. The Inquiry Officer was changed twice, and Sub Divisional Officer, Gauriganj was appointed as the Inquiry Officer.

Petitioner argued that even though he asked for the documents mentioned in the chargesheet, the same were not supplied to him. After the inquiry was concluded, petitioner was reduced to the lowest rank and penalty of Rs. 6,59,487/- was imposed on him, which was to be recovered from his salary.

Petitioner pleaded that the inquiry was against the provisions of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order was rejected by Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, Secretary Election Anubhag, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh.

Primary contention of the petitioner was that Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla acted as the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority under different designations, thus, the inquiry is vitiated. It was further pleaded that the inquiry was kept pending for 5 years and the petitioner was under suspension for the said period.

High Court Verdict

The Court held that the disciplinary and appellate proceedings both were vitiated as they were contrary to the principles of natural justice and were hit by bias.

“In all the three stages the requirement of law is that Inquiry Officer has to be different person then the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority has to be superior authority who looks into the correctness of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.”

The Court held that for a fair hearing, it is important that at every stage there is a different officer.

Deprecating the conduct of Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla who is acting as the Secretary Election Anubhag, the Court observed that such senior officer of the State Government is required to know the law and be well versed with the principles of natural justice.

“Needless to say that such miscarriage of justice results in huge loss to the State exchequer where huge time and energy will be spent by the senior officials in conduct of the said inquiry proceedings. Therefore, we expect that the persons conducting disciplinary proceedings are supposed to be well versed with the relevant rules and law applicable and only thereafter they should be permitted to conduct disciplinary proceedings.”

The Court directed that its order be placed before the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow for initiating appropriate proceedings against the erring officer.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with a cost of Rs. 25000/- to be paid by the State Government.

Case Title: Wasi Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru . Additional Cheif Secy. Prin. Secy. Election Anubhag,Lko. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3827 of 2023]

Click Here To Read/Download Order