Abhishek Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14582 of 2023 Petitioner :- Abhishek Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶1Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶2Petitioner, who is holding the position of Deputy Superintendent of Police, is aggrieved by the order dated 3rd April, 2023, whereby departmental proceeding has been instituted by the State Government under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1999') contemplating an inquiry and so the chargesheet was issued on 3rd April, 2023. A further prayer has been made to promote him as Additional Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 13th January, 2023 with all consequential benefits. By the order dated 3rd April, 2023 while contemplating an inquiry, petitioner was also suspended, however, later on vide order dated 11th August, 2023 he has been reinstated revoking the suspension order.

¶3There is a chequered history of this case, as not only controversy has traveled to U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow but also previously to this Court as well.

¶4Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner, who was earlier investigating officer in connection with criminal case arising out of Case Crime No.- 213-C of 2016 under Sections 342, 376-D of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ ST Act prepared a closure report No.- 68 of 2016 dated 13th September, 2015, however, under the order of Deputy Director General of Police, Moradabad Region, the matter was directed to be investigated afresh by the Circle Officer Mr. Om Pal Singh, district-Amroha, who submitted the chargesheet finding the evidence to be cogent and convincing, on 25th November, 2016 bearing chargesheet No.- 214. Resultantly, trial was started in connection with said case crime number being Sessions Trial No.- 1164 of 2017, however, it finally ended in the acquittal of the accused persons under the judgment and order of the Special Judge SC/ ST

(PA) Act, Moradabad dated 5th August, 2021 returning a specific finding to the effect that prosecution failed to establish commission of the crime.

¶5In the meanwhile, petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 26th March, 2018; as to why under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of Rules, 1999 an adverse entry of 'CENSURE' may not be awarded for casually conducting the investigation in the aforesaid case crime number in which subsequently another investigating officer has submitted chargsesheet. Petitioner did submit his reply to the show cause notice on 27th July, 2018 and thereafter vide order dated 20th July, 2018 petitioner was awarded with the adverse entry of censure. This order passed in proceedings drawn under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of Rules, 1999 came to be challenged by the petitioner before the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow vide Claim Petition No.- 1868 of 2018 and the Tribunal having returned a finding that petitioner's representation made in reply to the show cause notice was required to be considered by the disciplinary authority, was allowed the claim petition was allowed setting aside the order of a minor penalty of censure, dated 20th July, 2017(2018) but at the same time 2 of 14 giving this liberty to the respondent establishment to proceed a fresh, if so desired, after receiving representation from the petitioner in the matter.

¶6Instead of passing any order otherwise to initiate any proceeding for major penalty the disciplinary authority, namely, the State proceeded to reinitiate the proceedings for penalty of 'censure' by issuing show cause notice afresh on 11th July, 2019. Petitioner again submitted reply his on 5th November, 2019 asking the respondent to drop the proceedings accepting the explanation offered by him.

¶7In the meanwhile, while matter remained pending with the respondents, the Departmental Promotion Committee was organized to consider the promotion of the officers of batch of the petitioner taking recourse to the seal cover procedure in respect of the petitioner. This information was received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 furnished by the Section Office vide its letter dated 11th November, 2022. On 3rd November, 2022 petitioner was suspended in contemplation of an inquiry under Rule 4 read with 7 of Rules, 1999 for major penalty, referring to those very allegations to be reduced into charges that were made to initiate departmental proceedings. Show cause notice earlier issued to the petitioner on 16th March, 2018 exercising power under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of Rules, 1999. It is worth interesting to notice that this 3rd November, 2022 order was passed after the Trial Court had acquitted the accused person in session trial on 5th November, 2021. The petitioner, therefore, questioned this order of 3rd November, 2022 by means of writ petition being Writ – A No.- 19346 of 2022 and the Court found that there was nothing recorded as to be suggestive of the allegations levelled were to 3 of 14 be so serious that it would have warranted major penalty. The court further recorded a finding that 'from the pleadings on record nothing can be deciphered, so as to, enable the Government to form an opinion that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would warrant major penalty' and accordingly, the court set aside the suspension order dated 3rd November, 2022 by returning following finding:- "I have gone through the judgment of the trial court which acquits the accused on the basis of the statements of the prosecutrix and there is nothing on record to came to the conclusion that the trial come to an end because of faulty investigation. That being the case, prima facie, there is no material to enable the Government to form an opinion or to came to the conclusion that the allegations are serious enough to warrant a major penalty to the petitioner which is a sine qua non in terms first proviso to Rule 4(1) of the 1999 Rules. Thus the suspension order dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure-1) is set aside. As there is no challenges to the subsequent disciplinary proceedings in pursuance to the new charge sheet which is prepared against the petitioner but is pending for approval before the State Government (as argued by the Standing Counsel), I am not going into the said issue in the present petition."

¶8Against this order special appeal was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30th May, 2023 being Special Appeal Defective No.- 334 of 20232. It appears that on account of a window that remained opened for the respondent in the order dated 7th December, 2022 by this Court as there was no challenge to the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the new chargesheet dated 3rd April, 2023 and the order contemplating the said inquiry dated 3rd April, 2023, the respondents proceeded to conduct enquiry for major penalty and therefore, being left with no option, petitioner had to challenge these orders and the chargesheet before this Court and hence this petition. 4 of 14

¶9The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the proceedings were drawn for minor punishment under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of Rules, 1999 and penalty was imposed which was set aside by the Public Services Tribunal with an order of remand to pass order afresh after inviting representation from the petitioner, if it so wished/ desired and the fact that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17th July, 2019 for 'censure' to which petitioner did submit reply on 5th November, 2019, it was not open for the respondents to suspend the petitioner and to initiate the proceedings this time under Rule 4 and in contemplation of departmental proceeding for major penalty under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999. It is argued that allegations since were the same, this time by passing an order on 3rd November, 2022 placing the petitioner under suspension as were levelled against him in the initial show cause notice issued to him in proceedings drawn under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of Rules, 1999 on 26th March, 2018, it all amounted to review of the decision earlier taken by the disciplinary authority, which was not permissible in law. It is argued that Tribunal had quashed the order of minor penalty of 'censure' with a liberty that if department so desired it might invite representation from petitioner and pass orders, so the scope under the order of Tribunal was limited to the extent that the proceedings under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of Rules, 1999 would be re-initiated by inviting representation but under no circumstances the respondents could take liberty as if were directed, to hold proceedings for major penalty by placing petitioner under suspension under Rule 4 read with Rule 7 of Rules, 1999.

¶10Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that except for those very allegations mentioned in the show cause notice dated 26th March, 2018 drawing the proceedings under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 5 of 14 10 of Rules, 1999 no other allegation has been made in the order dated 3rd April, 2023 contemplating the inquiry for major penalty under Rule 7 and the chargesheet issued on 3rd April, 2023 as a sequel thereto.

¶11Per contra, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that Tribunal's order cannot be taken to be one binding to the authority, so as not to exercise its discretion in holding the disciplinary proceedings for major penalty, may be for the same charges, for which proceedings were earlier drawn for minor penalty. It is also argued that the observations made by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court earlier in its order dated 7th December, 2022 cannot be said to be a judgment restraining the disciplinary authority from proceeding under Rule 4 read with Rule 7 of Rules, 1999.

¶12Upon the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the proceedings were drawn under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of Rules, 1999, no second round of proceedings could have been instituted this time for major penalty placing petitioner under suspension under Rule 4 read with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, learned Standing Counsel submits that the order of Tribunal having been passed setting aside the order of major penalty earlier imposed upon the petitioner, it remained opened for the disciplinary authority to chose either to proceed for minor penalty or major penalty proceeding looking to the reply submitted by the petitioner.

¶13Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find it to be a glaring case of exercise of administrative discretion to be vitiated for malice in law. It is an admitted position that with show cause notice issued on 26th March, 2018 the respondents proceeded to level the charge of casual approach 6 of 14 in the conduct of the investigation and thus negligence and dereliction in discharge of official duty, which amounted to violation of Rule 3 of Government Servant Fundamental Rules, 1956 and yet chose to proceed for minor penalty prescribed for under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1999. While petitioner submitted his reply and the order of punishment of minor penalty of censure was awarded as prescribed under Rule 3(1), upon being challenged the Tribunal set aside the same holding that reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered at all inasmuch as the documents required by the petitioner were not supplied to. Thus it was held to be a case of violation of principles of natural justice and resultantly, the order of penalty dated 20th July, 2017 was set aside. There was no order of remand as such but liberty was given to the respondent to pass an informed order afresh, if it so desired, after taking explanation from the petitioner. The operative part of the order of Tribunal is reproduced hereunder:- "याचिका तदनु सार स्वीकार का जात है। दण्डादश दिदनुका

20.07.2017 (सालग्नु-1) अपास्त दिकाया जात है। विवीपाक्षीगण का# याहै स्वीतत्रत द% जात है दिका यादिद वी है& त# या सा स्पाष्टीकारण प्राप्त कारका उसामें& दिदया गया वि,न्द ओं पार साम्याका विवीर#पारन्त तका0 सागत वी में खरिरत आदश पारिरत कार साकात है4। पाक्षीकार अपानु-अपानु व्याया स्वीया वीहैनु कार&ग।" "Petition is accordingly allowed. Punishment order dated 20.07.2017 (Anexure-1) is quashed. Liberty rests with respondents, if they so wish, to seek explanation from the petitioner and then to pass order afresh after considering and meeting the points raised therein. Parties shall bear own cost." (English translation by Court)

¶14This order was passed on 7th June, 2019 and on 11th July, 2019 show cause notice was issued afresh to the petitioner stating therein that it was in compliance of the order of Tribunal. Thus, the 7 of 14 disciplinary authority while issuing the show cause notice afresh choose in its discretion to proceed only under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of Rules, 1999 and that is why a show cause notice was issued. This show cause notice was duly replied in detail and yet the disciplinary authority exercised the discretion to place the petitioner under suspension under Rule 4 in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry under Rule 7 for major penalty.

¶15What I find is that basic charge, rather it would be appropriate to call it as the only charge in the show cause notice is that the petitioner showed his carelessness, passive and indifferent approach in conducting investigation in connection with case crime number 213-C of 2016 and submitted a closure report for the reason that he did not send for FSL report to the laboratory and similarly the Call Detail Records (CDR) though were received but were not made part of the investigation.

¶16This above was the charge also in the order passed on 3rd November, 2022 while placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of an inquiry for major penalty under Rule 4 of Rules, 1999. For better appreciation the charge levelled as in the first paragraph of show cause notice dated 26th March, 2018 is reproduced hereunder: "वीर्ष0 2016 में& जा, आपा क्षीत्रचि7कार%, न्द8ल, जानुपाद साभल का पाद पार थे, त, वीदिदनु श्रीमेंत नुत< रनु पा त्र श्री रनु चिसाहै, चिनुवीसा ग्रामें- साफपा र जागनु, थेनु वि,लर%, जानुपाद में रद,द का चिशकायात प्राथे0नु पात्र का आ7र पार दिदनुका 07.08.2016 का# थेनु ,चिनुयाठेर पार पाजाका@ त में ०अ०सा०-213 सा/2016 7र 342/376 डा% भ०द०विवी० वी 3(2)5 एसा०सा०/एसा०टी%० एक्टी ,नुमें सात्यापाल रठे8र वी उमेंश का# प्रारम्भिम्भका स्तर पार विवीवीनु आपाका द्वार ग्राहैण कार साम्पादिदत का गई। आपा द्वार विवीवीनु सा पादिIत नुत< का घटीनु 8 of 14 का सामेंया पाहैनु वीस्त्रोंL का# काब्जा में& चिलया गया , लदिकानु उनुका# पार%क्षीण हैत< विवीचि7 विवीज्ञानु प्राया#गशल नुहै% भजा गया , जा,दिका ,लत्कार का अपार7 का विवीवीनु में& याहै आवीश्याका एवी अचिनुवीया0 है। इसा प्राकार आपा द्वार सा०डा%०आर० प्राप्त का गई, लदिकानु उसाका विवीश्लेर्षण कारत है ए विवीवीनु में& साम्भिम्मेंचिलत नुहै% दिकाया गया और अल्पा सामेंया में& दिदनुका 13.09.2016 अथे0त 01 मेंहै 05 दिदनु में& विवीवीनु द्वार अम्भिन्तमें रिरपा#टी0 सा०-68/2016 दिदनुका

13.09.2016 का# मेंया जा में0 खरिरजा रिरपा#टी0 प्राविर्षत कार सामेंप्त कार द% गई।" (emphasis added) "In the year 2016 when you were posted as Circle Officer, Chandauli, District Sambhal then as a result of complaint of one Smt. Neetu Rani D/o Sri Charan Singh, resident of village-Saifpur Jagna, Police Station – Bilari, District-Moradabad on 7th August, 2016 at Police Station-Baniyathher, an FIR was registered as Case Crime No.- 213 C/ 2016 under Sections 342/ 376 D of I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of SC/ ST Act v. Satyapal Rathore and Umesh and while preliminary stage of investigation was conducted by you, you had though taken the dress that was worn by the victim Neetu, during investigation, but you did not send the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, whereas in cases of offence of rape it is necessary to do so for investigation purposes. Similarly you had been served with the Call Detail Records (CDR) but you did not examine the same to make it part of the investigation and within a sort span of time i.e. one month and five days you submitted the final report on 13.09.2016 bearing No.- 68 of 2016." (English translation by the Court)

¶17The reason for holding departmental inquiry for major penalty was given in paragraph 5 of the order dated 3rd November, 2022 which is also reproduced hereunder: "5. श्री यादवी द्वार उपालब्7 कारया गया स्पाष्टीकारण एवी अन्या सा सागत अचिभलखL का पारिरशलनु सा स्पाष्टी है दिका श्री यादवी द्वार दिदनुका07.08.2016 का# थेनु ,चिनुयाठेर पार पाजाका@ त में ०अ०सा०-213 सा/2016 7र 342, 376 डा% भ०द०विवी वी 3(2)5 एसा०सा०/एसा०टी%० एक्टी ,नुमें सात्यापाल रठे8र वी उमेंश में& पादिIत नुत< का घटीनु का सामेंया पाहैनु वीस्त्रोंL का# काब्जा में& चिलया गया 9 of 14 लदिकानु उनुका# पार%क्षीण हैत विवीचि7 विवीज्ञानु प्राया#गशल नु भजा जानु , सा०डा%०आर० प्राप्त कारनु का ,द भ उसाका विवीश्लेर्षण कारत है ए विवीवीनु में& साम्भिम्मेंचिलत नुहै% दिकाया जानु और अल्पासामेंया में& दिदनुका 13.09.2016 का# 01 मेंहै 05 दिदनु में& विवीवीनु द्वार अम्भिन्तमें रिरपा#टी0 साख्या -68/2016 दिदनुका

13.09.2016 का# मेंया जा में0 खरिरजा रिरपा#टी0 प्राविर्षत कार सामेंप्त कार दिदया जानु का का@ त्या एका रजापावित्रत अचि7कार% का शसाकाया कात0व्या# एवी दचियात्वी# का सावी0थे विवीपार%त है जा# उ०प्रा० सारकार% सावीका आरण चिनुयामेंवील -1956 का चिनुयामें-3 का स्पाष्टी उल्लघनु है प्राश्नगत प्राकारण का गम्भरत एवी सावीदनुशलत का# दखत है ए श्री अचिभर्षका यादवी, तत्कालनु क्षीत्रचि7कार% न्द8सा, जानुपाद साम्भल साम्प्राचित साहैयाका सानुनुयाका, 37 वी वीदिहैनु पा०ए०सा० कानुपा र का# उत्तर प्रादश सारकार% सावीका (अनु शसानु एवी अपाल) चिनुयामेंवील, 1999 का चिनुयामें-4 का अन्तग0त चिनुलम्भिम्,त कारत है ए उक्त चिनुयामेंवील का चिनुयामें-7 का अन्तग0त विवीभगया काया0वीहै% साम्भिस्थेत (contemplated) का जात है।" (emphasis added) "Upon perusal of explanation and other related documents made available by Sri Yadav it transpires that in connection with a registered Case Crime No.- 213 C/ 2016 under Sections 342/ 376 D of I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of SC/ ST Act v. Satyapal Rathore and Umesh on 07.08.2016 Police Station Baniyadher while conducting investigation at preliminary stage the dress that was worn by the victim Neetu at the time of incident, was taken by Sri Yadav but for not sending the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and not analysing/ examining even upon receiving the CDR to make it part of the investigation and for submitting final report being No.- 68 of 2016 within a sort span of time i.e. one month and five days on 13.09.2016 you are guilty of an unbecoming act of Gazetted Officer in discharge of official duties which is against Rule-3 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Looking to the seriousness and sensitivity involved in the matter vide Government No.: 1955/Chha:- Pu.Se.-1-2020-09(13)/ 2018 dated 03.11.2022 Sri Abhishek Yadav, the then Circle Officer Chandausi, District Sambhal, now the Assistant Commandant, 37th PAC, Kanpur is placing under suspension vide Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 in contemplation of departmental inquiry under Rule 7 of the said Rules." 10 of 14 (English translation by the Court)

¶18Thus, from the above paragraph it is absolutely clear that the allegation-cum-charge remained the same as in the initial show cause notice dated 16th March, 2018 drawing proceedings under Rule 3(1) of Rules, 1999 but surprisingly the discretion this time was exercised by the respondent in directing for departmental inquiry for major penalty. The Court does not find this discretion in any manner to be the logical one which can be conceived by any stretch of imagination in the given facts and circumstances of the case. No one can perceive same charge to have acquired higher degree of gravity with passage of time. Still further, the liberty was given to the disciplinary authority under the order of Tribunal to only pass fresh order, while it set aside the previous order of penalty of 'censure' and so it means that the disciplinary authority could have either inflicted the punishment again of same nature or could have exonerated the petitioner from the charges but under no circumstances, this liberty could have been taken as an opportunity by the respondents to proceed against the petitioner for major penalty enquiry. There is no higher degree or some serious charge than the charge levelled in the initial show cause notice and, therefore, it is apparent to be a case of malice in law as the exercise of discretion has been malicious one for no justifiable reasons which can be said to be judicious one. This order of suspension was challenged and the High Court this time considered the finding returned in the judgment of trial court while acquitting him from the criminal case on the basis of the recorded statements of the prosecution. The Court returned a finding that nothing can be deciphered from the judgment of trial court that the accused persons got acquitted for any faulty investigation. The finding part in the earlier order of this Court as I have already reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment and the 11 of 14 said findings in the judgment of the High Court dated 7th December, 2022 was not questioned at all in appeal at higher forum.

¶19Now, coming to the order dated 3rd April, 2023 passed by the Chief Secretary on behalf of the State Government, I find the charge to be the same again. The first part of the order dated 3rd April, 2023 is reproduced hereunder: "जा, वीर्ष0 2016 में& श्री अचिभर्षका यादवी, तत्कालनु क्षीत्रचि7कार%, न्द8सा जानुपाद साम्भल का पाद पार तनुत थे। त, वीदिदनु श्रीमेंत नुत< रनु पा त्र श्री रनु चिसाहै चिनु० ग्रामें साफपा र जागनु थेनु वि,लर% जानुपाद में रद,द का चिशकायात प्राथे0नु -पात्र पार दिदनुका07.08.2016 का# थेनु ,चिनुयाठेर पार पाजाका@ त में ०अ०सा०-213 सा/2016 7र 342, 376 डा% भ०द०विवी वी 3(2)5 एसा०सा०/एसा०टी%० एक्टी ,नुमें सात्यापाल रठे8र वी उमेंश का प्रारम्भिम्भका स्तर पार विवीवीनु श्री यादवी द्वार ग्राहैण कार साम्पादिदत का गया , श्री यादवी द्वार विवीवीनु सा पादिIत नुत< का घटीनु का सामेंया पाहैनु वीस्त्रोंL का# काब्जा में& चिलया गया लदिकानु उनुका# पार%क्षीण हैत विवीचि7 विवीज्ञानु प्राया#गशल नुहै% भजा गया जा,दिका ,लत्कार का अपार7 का विवीवीनु में& याहै आवीश्याका एवी अचिनुवीया0 है। इसा प्राकार श्री यादवी द्वार सा०डा%०आर० प्राप्त का गया लदिकानु उसाका विवीश्लेर्षण कारत है ए विवीवीनु में& साम्भिम्मेंचिलत नुहै% दिकाया गया और अल्पासामेंया में& दिदनुका 13.09.2016 का# 01 मेंहै 05 दिदनु में& विवीवीनु द्वार अम्भिन्तमें रिरपा#टी0 साख्या-68/2016 दिदनुका 13.09.2016 का# मेंया जा में0 खरिरजा रिरपा#टी0 प्राविर्षत कार सामेंप्त कार दिदया जानु का द#र्ष पाया गया , जा# श्री यादवी का याहै का@ त्या उ०प्रा० सारकार% सावीका आरण चिनुयामेंवील-1956 का चिनुयामें-3 का स्पाष्टी उल्लघनु है। प्राश्नगत प्राकारण का गम्भरत एवी सावीदनुशलत का# दखत है ए शसानु का काया0लया आदश साख्याX1955/छःX-पा ०सा०-1-2022-09(13)/2018 दिदनुका 03.11.2022 द्वार श्री अचिभर्षका यादवी, तत्कालनु क्षीत्रचि7कार% न्द8सा, जानुपाद साम्भल साम्प्राचित साहैयाका सानुनुयाका, 37 वी वीदिहैनु पा०ए०सा० कानुपा र का# उत्तर प्रादश सारकार% सावीका (अनु शसानु एवी अपाल) चिनुयामेंवील, 1999 का चिनुयामें-4 का अन्तग0त चिनुलम्भिम्,त कारत है ए उक्त चिनुयामेंवील का चिनुयामें-7 का अन्तग0त विवीभगया काया0वीहै% साम्भिस्थेत (contemplated) का गया।" (emphasis added) 12 of 14 "When in the year 2016 Sri Abhishek Yadav was posted as Circle Officer, Chandausi District Sambhal, then an F.I.R. with Case Crime No.-

213 C/ 2016 under Sections 342/ 376 D of I.P.C. and

3(2)5 of SC/ ST Act v. Satyapal Rathore and Umesh was registered as a result of complaint made by one Smt. Neetu Rani D/o Sri Charan Singh, resident of village-Saifpur Jagna, Police Station – Bilari, District-Moradabad on 7

th August, 2016 at

Police Station-Baniyathher, initially investigation was conducted at the preliminary stage by Sri Yadav but while he had taken into custody the dress that was worn by the victim but did not send the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, whereas in cases of offence of rape it was necessary. Likewise, Sri Yadav did get the C.D.R. but he did not examine the same and did not make it part of investigation and in a very sort span of time i.e. within one month and five days submitted a final report being Final Report No.- 68/ 2016 on 13.09.2016. Therefore, he has found prima facie guilty by such conduct being in violation of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Looking to the seriousness and sensitivity involved in the matter vide Government No.: 1955/Chha:- Pu.Se.-1-2020-09(13)/ 2018 dated 03.11.2022 Sri Abhishek Yadav, the then Circle Officer Chandausi, District Sambhal, now the Assistant Commandant, 37th PAC, Kanpur is placing under suspension vide Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 in contemplation of departmental inquiry under Rule 7 of the said Rules." (English translation by the Court)

¶20Thus, it is clear that no new charges are there, nor any finding has been returned that something more is reflected in the preliminary fact finding report which required further investigation or inquiry by the department inasmuch as the order of acquittal having been passed by the trial court on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix, the petitioner now cannot be held guilty of any faulty investigation. The charge is the same as the impugned chargesheet dated 3rd April, 2023 contains in the articles of the charge. 13 of 14

¶21In view of the above, I do not find any find any good ground to sustain the chargesheet and the disciplinary proceedings drawn against the petitioner.

¶22Accordingly, the order dated 3rd April, 2023 and the chargesheet dated 3rd April, 2023 are hereby quashed.

¶23Now on the question of promotion of the petitioner since the chargesheet has been quashed and the respondents have not passed any order to inflict any minor penalty upon the petitioner, it is a fit case where respondents deserve to be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion by opening the sealed cover and accord him due promotion in accordance with law.

¶24Appropriate order shall be passed by the respondents within a period of 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Atmesh 14 of 14 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad