Santosh Narayan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Judgment Reserved on 2.7.2025 Delivered on 09.7.2025. Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3234 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Narayan Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Mishra,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶2Petitioner, a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) with U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. was served with a charge-sheet on 16.8.2014 along with other employees that sheet piles purchased for the purpose of construction were not as per the design and specification and there was dereliction of duties.

¶3Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 7.9.2015 and denied the allegations levelled against him.

¶4The Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 28.1.2016 whereby the charge levelled against the petitioner was found to be proved that the petitioner failed to inspect the factory of supplier, samples were not examined by third party and after supply sheet piles were not examined and details of it were not found as per Design & Specification. Relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "विेचनाः-

अपचारɜᑿक्቞चारɜᑿकाबचा बयानस्ɜᑿकारयोग्यनह睵漅है攺屝अपचारɜᑿक्቞चारɜᑿ्ቛ ारा

फैक्ट्रɜᑿकाविनरɜᑿ्ቌ폸नह睵漅विकयागया攺屝आपूቔኌ#क#ा फ्቞्ቛ ाराआपूቔኌ# क᮷᭽गॠ᭝शɜᑿट

पाॠ᭝ल्ⷅ┼केन्቞ूनं५(ⷅ┼ैम्पुल)

काथ膢ꖋ पाट/ ⷅ┼ेपरɜᑿ्ቌ폸भɜᑿनह睵漅करायेगये,

आपूቔኌ# क#ा

ⷅ┼ेशɜᑿटपाॠ᭝ल्ⷅ┼्ቚ ा漽肧होनेपरशɜᑿटपाइलकाविनरɜᑿ्ቌ폸/

परɜᑿ्ቌ폸भɜᑿनह睵漅करायागया攺屝

फ्቞ ⷅ┼ेआपूቔኌ# #ɜᑿगॠ᭝शɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼डि膢ꖋज़ाइनए撫厄विशिशवि9यं५केअनुरूप(As per Design & Specification)

हैअथानह睵漅इⷅ┼केवि;यान्नए撫厄गु폸्ቈापरɜᑿ्ቌ폸

अपचारɜᑿक्቞चारɜᑿ्ቛ ारानह睵漅विकयेगये攺屝

अपचारɜᑿक्቞चारɜᑿ्ቛ ारायवि> आपूቔኌ# ⷅ┼ेपू फैक्ट्रɜᑿ्቞ 斶湠विनरɜᑿ्ቌ폸विकयागयाहो#ा#ो

गल# शɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼क᮷᭽आपूቔኌ# नह睵漅हो#ɜᑿ攺屝फ्቞ कोभुग#ानहे#ु्቞ ापɜᑿकेⷅ┼्቞य्቞ 斶湠भɜᑿ

इनके्ቛ ाराशɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼क᮷᭽ⷅ┼ाइ钶샗 विशिशवि9यं५्቞ 斶湠शिभ्ቐ#ाहोनेक᮷᭽ቝኌस्थडि# ⷅ┼े

ⷅ┼म्बቝኌन्C# ⷅ┼हायकअशिभयन्#ा उपपरिरयो钶샗ना्ቚ बन्Cक(यॉ०)

कोअग# नह睵漅

करायागया攺屝अ#ए आरोपⷅ┼ाቌኚयं५ⷅ┼े्ቚ्቞ ाशि폸# हो#ाहै攺屝 विनष्क्ቧः-

उपरो臊訙विेचनारोस्प9 हैविकआरोपⷅ┼撫厄०-01

अपचारɜᑿक्቞चारɜᑿपर

" ⷅ┼ाቌኚयं५ⷅ┼े्ቚ्቞ ाशि폸# हो#ाहै攺屝

¶5Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 9.2.2016 to which he submitted his reply on

1.3.2016. However, instead of taking a decision on it, a supplementary charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner in regard to financial loss caused to the Department due to such grade sheet piles which were remained unused. The petitioner thereafter submitted his reply to the supplementary charge-sheet on 30.11.2018 to the Inquiry Officer.

¶6Meanwhile, petitioner got retired on 30.6.2019 and thereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report so far as financial loss to the department is concerned and observed that supplementary charge was not found to be proved against the petitioner i.e. no financial loss was caused. The said report was also submitted before the Disciplinary Authority who by communication dated 22.7.2021 sought a clarification and a fresh report was sought. Communication dated 22.7.2021 in its entirety is mentioned hereinafter: "

्቞ु ख्यपरिरयो钶샗ना्ቚ बन्Cक(ाशि폸ज्य)

उ०्ቚ०राज्यⷅ┼े#ुविनग्቞ लिल० लखनऊ攺屝 वि्ቧयः-

य्቞ुनाⷅ┼े#ुडिच्ቤाघाट य्቞ुनाⷅ┼े#ु्቞ काघाटपरया撫厄विSकइकाॠ᭝

इलाहाबा>्ቛ ारा;यक᮷᭽गॠ᭝शɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼क᮷᭽ⷅ┼撫厄ቝኌस्थ# 钶샗ाँचके;्቞्቞ 斶湠

अन्#ኚ᭷स्# अडिCकारɜᑿ/

का቞ኌ्቞क्ቦ ɜᑿका्቞#ारा्቞ या>,

ⷅ┼हायकअशिभयन्#ा (यॉविSक)

ए撫厄्ቦ ɜᑿⷅ┼撫厄#ो्ቧ नाराय폸विSपाठɜᑿ,

अरअशिभयन्#ा(या撫厄विSक)

क᮷᭽钶샗ाँच

आख्याउपलब्C करानेकेⷅ┼म्बन्C्቞ 斶湠 ⷅ┼न्>भ-01.

्ቚ ०विन०काकायालय्ሺ ाप300

ॠ᭝एⷅ┼बɜᑿ/ 3105 एⷅ┼बɜᑿⷅ┼ɜᑿ-परिरा> / 2014

वि>ना撫厄क16.08.2014 02.

आपकापSा撫厄क174/क्቞ቦኌशयल/钶샗ॉच

शɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼/2020

वि>ना撫厄क19.02.2021

उपरो臊訙वि्ቧयकⷅ┼撫厄>ቦኌभ# वि>ना撫厄क19.02.2021

काⷅ┼撫厄>भ ኚ᭷ह폸करने

काक9 कर斶湠,

जि钶샗ⷅ┼के्ቛ ाराअ撫厄#स्# अडिCकारɜᑿ/

का቞ኌ्቞कं५्ቦ ɜᑿका्቞#ारा्቞ या>,

ⷅ┼हायकअशिभयन्#ा(या撫厄विSक)

ए撫厄ⷅ┼撫厄#ो्ቧ नाराय폸विSपाठɜᑿ, अर

अशिभयन्#ा(या撫厄विSक)

क᮷᭽्ቚे वि्ቧ# 钶샗ॉचआख्याक᮷᭽ⷅ┼्቞ɜᑿ्ቌा्቞ 斶湠विनम्नलिललिख#

आपलि्ቈयं५पायɜᑿगयɜᑿहै-

01.

ⷅ┼्቞ान्ቚ कर폸्቞ 斶湠अपचारɜᑿअडिCकारɜᑿ्ቦ ɜᑿए०एन०कु्቞ार#त्कालɜᑿन

उपपरिरयो钶샗ना्ቚ बन्Cक(यॉविSक)

परआरोप्ቚ्቞ ाशि폸# पायागया,

परन्#ु्ቚ्቞ ग#

अपचारɜᑿअडिCकारिरयं५पर钶샗ॉचअडिCकारɜᑿ्ቛ ाराअपु9 पायागयाहै攺屝

02.

गु폸्ቈा्቞ 斶湠क्቞ɜᑿकेकार폸शɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼काउपयोगनहोनेⷅ┼ेविनग्቞ को

वि्ቈɜᑿयहाविनहुॠ᭝है攺屝ऐⷅ┼ɜᑿቝኌस्थडि#्቞ 斶湠वि्ቈɜᑿय्቞ 斶湠वि्ቈɜᑿयहाविनक᮷᭽ग폸ना्቞ 斶湠 Depreciation

लगाकरकरनाविकⷅ┼्ቚ कारन्यायोडिच# है?

03.

अरगु폸्ቈाक᮷᭽आपूቔኌ# लेनेहे#ुⷅ┼हायकअशिभयन्#ा(या撫厄विSक)

ए撫厄अर

अशिभयन्#ा(या撫厄विSक)

उ्ቈर>ायɜᑿनह睵漅है,

इⷅ┼केⷅ┼म्बन्C्቞ 斶湠ኌᭇकग्቞ै नुअलका

ⷅ┼ुⷅ┼撫厄ग#्ቚ स्#रउद्‌Cृ# करनेहे#ु钶샗ाँचअडिCकारɜᑿकोविन>dशिश# विकया钶샗ाय攺屝

उ臊訙आपलि्ቈयं५के;्቞्቞ 斶湠钶샗ाँचकायाहɜᑿउपरान्# 钶샗ॉचआख्याक᮷᭽#त्काल

आश्यक#ाहै्ቚ कर폸्቞ ा०उ溋滙न्यायालयⷅ┼ेआच्छावि># है攺屝

अ#ःआपकेⷅ┼撫厄>ቦኌभ# पS वि>ना撫厄क19.02.2021

्ቛ ारा्ቚ ा漽肧आख्या्቞ू लरूप्቞ 斶湠

ⷅ┼ल鎫꽂करइⷅ┼अपे्ቌाⷅ┼ेापⷅ┼क᮷᭽钶샗ारहɜᑿहैविकउ臊訙03

आपलि्ቈयं५के;्቞्቞ 斶湠

钶샗ाँचकायाहɜᑿउपरान्# स्प9 ⷅ┼撫厄स्#ुडि# ⷅ┼विह# 钶샗ॉचआख्याउपलब्C करानेका

क9 कर斶湠,

#ाविक्ቚ कर폸काविनस्#ार폸विकया钶샗ाⷅ┼के攺屝"

¶7In the aforesaid circumstances, a fresh notice dated 10.2.2022 was issued to the petitioner to which again he submitted reply on

17.2.2022. The Inquiry Officer submitted another inquiry report dated 04.4.2022 to the Disciplinary Authority, on the issues raised and held that no financial loss was caused. Relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "2.

गु폸्ቈा्቞ 斶湠क्቞ɜᑿकेकार폸शɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼काउपयोगनहोनेⷅ┼ेविनग्቞ को

वि्ቈɜᑿयहाविनहुॠ᭝है攺屝ऐⷅ┼ɜᑿቝኌस्थडि#्቞ 斶湠वि्ቈɜᑿयहाविनक᮷᭽ग폸ना्቞ 斶湠Depreciation

लगाकरकरनाविकⷅ┼्ቚ कारन्यायोडिच# है?

्ቚ स्#ु#क#ा इकाॠ᭝्ቛ ाराविनग्቞ कोहुॠ᭝वि्ቈɜᑿयहाविनⷅ┼म्बन्Cɜᑿकोॠ᭝ⷅ┼ाቌኚय/

अशिभलेखउपलब्C नह睵漅करायेगयेहै,

钶샗बविकअपचारिरयं५्ቛ ाराउपलब्C कराए

गयेⷅ┼ाቌኚयं५्቞ 斶湠यहजिⷅ┼꼼쇅नह睵漅विकया钶샗ाⷅ┼काहैविकशɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼अनुपयोगɜᑿहै攺屝

उ溋滙अडिCकारिरयं५्ቛ ाराⷅ┼्቞य-

ⷅ┼्቞यपरⷅ┼ाቌኚयअशिभलेखं५्቞ 斶湠उ्ቤेखविकयागयाहै यथा-

(क)

विकअनुपयोगɜᑿशɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼फ्቞ कोापⷅ┼कर>ɜᑿगॠ᭝ए撫厄फ्቞ ⷅ┼ेपू폸

Cनराशिशटैक्ⷅ┼ⷅ┼विह# विनग्቞ को्ቚ ा漽肧होचुक᮷᭽है攺屝

(ख)

उपयोगक᮷᭽गॠ᭝शɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼कोविनग्቞ केविकⷅ┼ɜᑿअडिCकारɜᑿ्ቛ ाराअभɜᑿ

#कअनुपयोगɜᑿघोवि्ቧ# नह睵漅विकयागयाहै攺屝

(ग)

ⷅ┼ाቌኚयअशिभलेख斶湠्቞ 斶湠पायागयाविकशɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼क᮷᭽उपयोविग#ा钶샗ाँचके

लिलएअलगगविठ# ⷅ┼वि्቞डि# काविनष्क्ቧ रहाविकशɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼्቞ 斶湠आ撫厄शिशक

्቞ ोडि膢ꖋविफकेशनकेबा> 4-4.50

्቞ ɜᑿटरपाइिሴलगकेलिलएयेशɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼उपयोग

्቞ 斶湠लाॠ᭝钶샗ाⷅ┼क#ɜᑿहै攺屝

(घ)

विनग्቞्ቛ ाराशɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼कोअभɜᑿ#कविनष््ቚयोज्यघोवि्ቧ# विकए钶샗ानेक᮷᭽

कायाहɜᑿ#क्ቚ ारम्भनह睵漅क᮷᭽गयɜᑿहै攺屝

(च)

शिशकाय# केबा> बाँ>ाइकाॠ᭝्ቚ भारɜᑿ्ቛ ाराभɜᑿⷅ┼ूडिच# विकयागयाहैविक

शɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼का्ቚ योगपɜᑿ-29  पɜᑿ-27

केआइलैण्膢ꖋबनाने्቞ 斶湠विकयागयाहै攺屝

उⷅ┼केबा> उपयोगनह睵漅विकयागयाहै攺屝

(छ)

;यस्टɜᑿलपाइल्ⷅ┼कोआश्यक#ानहोनेकेकार폸अन्यकाय स्थलं५्቞ 斶湠

>ɜᑿघाडिC #कस्थानान्#र폸आ>ेशविनग# नह睵漅रहेहै攺屝

(钶샗)

अपचारɜᑿ्ቛ ाराअग# करायागयाहैविकउ臊訙शɜᑿटपाइल्ⷅ┼चन्>ौलɜᑿइकाॠ᭝

कोस्थानान्#रिर# क᮷᭽गॠ᭝हैए撫厄उन्ह斶湠उपयोग्቞ 斶湠लाया钶샗ारहाहै攺屝 इस┼ ;पቚ कार;कय;शीᑿ ट;पाइल् स┼ ;अनुपयोगीᑿ ;जि स┼ द쇅 ;नही漅 ;होने;स┼ े;वि व्ቈ ीᑿ य;हावि न की᭽ ;पुवि ष;नही漅 ;हो;पातीᑿ ;ह।屝ै ;शीᑿ ट;पाइल् स┼ ,;स् थाई᭝ ;स┼ म् पलि ्ቈ ;की᭽ ;शቦ ेण ीᑿ ;म म湠;आतीᑿ ;है, जि ज샗 नका;वतरम ान;म ूल् य;आं厄कलन;के ;लि लए;स┼ म् पलि ्ቈ ;की᭽ ;Depreciated;Value घटा;कर;हीᑿ ;दशारई᭝ ;ज샗 ातीᑿ ;ह।屝ै ;वि नगम ;के ;व?ᭇ कग;म ैनुअल;म म湠;शीᑿ ट;पाइल् स┼ ;की᭽ Depreciation;20?;पቚ धि त;वषቧ र;की᭽ ;दर;स┼ े;वि नधारि रत;ह।屝ै ;यह;अवि नवायर;पቚ वि कया ह।屝ै ;तत् कम ;म म湠;Depreciation;म द;का;स┼ ं厄जሺ ान;लि लया;गया;ह।屝ै ;स┼ म ान;पቚ करण ;म म湠, अन् य;उच滙 ;अधि धकारि रयो५ ;के ;वि वरू द쇅 ;ज샗 ाएच;म म湠;पቚ बन् ध;ततं厄 ;के ;असኌ न् तम ;वि नष् कषቧ र;म म湠 स् पष;रू प;स┼ े;उ्ቤ ेख;वि कया;गया;है;वि क;वि नगम ;को;वि कस┼ ीᑿ ;पቚ कार;की᭽ ;वि व्ቈ ीᑿ य;हावि न नही漅 ;हुई᭝ ;ह।屝ै यथा

1.;म ुख् य;परि रयोज샗 ना;पቚ बन् धक,;इलाहाबाद;शቦ ीᑿ ;डꖋ ीᑿ ०आर०;वि वदቕ ाथ?;का;पቚ बन् ध वि नदेशक;कायारलय;जሺ ाप;स┼ ं厄०;838;वि दनां厄क;29.11.2017

2.;उप;परि रयोज샗 ना;पቚ बन् धक;शቦ ीᑿ ;नवाद;सሺ स┼ ह;का;पताक;19;ज샗 ीᑿ ०एम ०;वि दनाक

28.01.2016;एय;कायारलय;जሺ ाप;स┼ ०;696,;वि दनां厄क;13.09.2018

3.;यां厄वि तक;इकाई᭝ ,;इलाहाबाद;के ;लेखापቚ भारीᑿ ;शቦ ीᑿ ;वि वज샗 य;कु म ार;शቦ ीᑿ वास् तव;की᭽ ज샗 ाएच;स┼ म् बन् धीᑿ ;कायारलय;जሺ ाप;820;वि दनां厄क;21.11.2017 उपरोक訙 ;तथ् यो५ ;के ;बाद;भीᑿ ;यवि द;करኌ म यो५ ;पर;वि नगम ;दቛ ारा;आं厄कलि लत;वि व्ቈ ीᑿ य;हावि न की᭽ ;वस┼ ूलीᑿ ;का;वि नण रय;लि लया;ज샗 ाता;है;और;उस┼ स┼ े;करኌ म यो५ ;दቛ ारा;उक訙 ;वि नण रय;के वि वरू द쇅 ;न् यायालय;की᭽ ;शरण ;लेता;है;तो;वि नगम ;को;अपने;लि लए;गये;वि व्ቈ ीᑿ य;हावि न के ;वि नण रय;को;उधि चत;पቚ म ाणि ण त;करना;कवि ठन;होगा।屝

3.;अवर;गुण व्ቈ ा;की᭽ ;आपूरኌ त;लेने;हेतु;स┼ हायक;अणि भयन् ता;(यो५ वि तक);एवं厄;अवर अणि भयन् ता;(याएवि तक);उ्ቈ रदायीᑿ ;नही漅 ;है,;इस┼ के ;स┼ म् बन् ध;म म湠;व?ᭇ कग;म ैनुअल;का स┼ ुस┼ ं厄गत;पቚ स् तर;उद् ध‌ ृत;करने;हेतु;ज샗 ाएच;अधि धकारीᑿ ;को;वि नदkणि शत;वि कया;ज샗 ाय।屝 व?ᭇ कग;म ैनुअल;के ;पቚ स् तर;200;व;201;म म湠;स┼ हायक;अणि भयन् ता/अवर;अणि भयन् ता के ;वि नधारि रत;उ्ቈ रदाधि यत् य;स┼ ाम ान् यता;वि नम ारण ;कायर,;उस┼ की᭽ ;कायर;योज샗 ना,;पቚ गधि त तथा;लेखां厄कन;आवि द;स┼ े;स┼ म् बसኌ न् धत;है,;उनम म湠;स┼ हायक;अणि भयन् ता;(या);अवर अणि भयन् ता;(या);के ;स् पष;उ्ቈ रदाधि यत् व;का;उ्ቤ ेख;नही漅 ;ह।屝ै परि रवाद;वगर;स┼ े;अपचारीᑿ ;अधि धकारीᑿ /कम रचारीᑿ ;के ;पቚ धि तवेदन;एवं厄;ज샗 ाएच;स┼ म ीᑿ +ቌ ा;के स┼ ुझाव;के ;कम ;म म湠;अपचारि रयो५ ;के ;अपने;बचाव;प+ቌ ;रखे;ज샗 ाने;हेतु;असኌ न् तम ;अवस┼ र पቚ दान ; करते ; हए ; व् यवि क訙 गत ; स┼ ुनवाई᭝ ; हेतु ; वि दनां厄क ;17.02.2022 ;कोु अधोहस् ता+ቌ रीᑿ ;दቛ ारा;स┼ म् बसኌ न् धत;को;बुलाया;गया।屝 ;उनको;अपने;असኌ न् तम ;लि ललि खत बयान;एवं厄;स┼ ाकኚ य;अणि भलेख;यवि द;कोई᭝ ;हो,;उपलब् ध;कराने;तथा;पቚ करण ;स┼ म् बन् धीᑿ पቚ ् ो५ ;पर;अपना;कथन;लि ललि खत;रू प;म म湠;म ां厄गे;गये।屝 पቚ ा्肧 ;पቚ ् ो्ቈ र;म य;स┼ ाकኚ य;अणि भलेखो५ ;स┼ वि हत;स┼ ं厄लग꽂 ;कर;पቚ ेवि षቧ त।屝 ?

¶8Disciplinary Authority did not pass any order on both the inquiry reports and instead constituted a three member committee to determine financial loss. Said three member committee submitted its Report on 29.8.2022, whereby a loss of Rs.20 lakhs was determined and accordingly 60 percent of financial liability i.e. about Rs. 12 lakhs was fixed on the petitioner.

¶9On basis of above referred documents and reports, an Office Memorandum dated 23.9.2022 was passed whereby a liability of Rs.12 lakhs was imposed on the petitioner with a direction to recover it.

¶10Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal, but same was dismissed vide order dated 20.2.2025. Both the orders dated 23.9.2022 and

20.2.2025 are impugned in the present case.

¶11Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the inquiry report dated 28.1.2016, petitioner was found that he has not discharged his duties to scrutinize sheet files and it was found not to be designed as per specification, however no financial loss was reported as well as Disciplinary Authority has not passed any order after show cause notice was issued and reply was submitted by petitioner as well as other delinquents charged with similar charges were exonerated.

¶12Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as other delinquents are concerned, no financial loss was reported.

¶13Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that de-hors of procedure, supplementary charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner wherein without any basis, a charge was levelled against the petitioner to determine financial loss. However, in the supplementary inquiry report dated 18.2.2021, petitioner was exonerated from said charges, but still de-hors of rules, Appointing Authority made objection to said supplementary inquiry report and sought clarifications from Inquiry Officer vide letter dated

22.7.2021. Again by a report dated 4.4.2022, Inquiry Officer reported that there was no financial loss, but still Disciplinary Authority passed impugned order dated 23.9.2022 after considering reply of petitioner to fresh show cause notice and determined that there was a financial loss of Rs.20 lakhs/- and accordingly liability up to 60% was fixed upon the petitioner.

¶14Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aforesaid order was based on a fresh report of a three member committee. The constitution of a three member committee was not only de-hors Rules, but it was an ex-parte report and no reason was assigned to take a contrary view to the two reports of the Inquiry Officer that there was no financial loss.

¶15Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the repeated inquiry, petitioner was found guilty of charge that sheet piles purchased for the purpose of construction were not as per the design and specification, therefore it were not utilised in the construction. So far as financial loss is concerned, Inquiry Officer has given reasons which were not found genuine, therefore a Three Member Committee was constituted to determine financial loss and it was determined on basis of prescribed procedure and nothing has been brought on record to contradict the same.

¶16Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶17Petitioner has suffered with inquiry report where in charges levelled against him were found to be proved that he has not discharged his duties diligently and has not inspected the sheet piles which were not found as per requisite design and specification. No third party audit was conducted.

¶18Petitioner was further suffered with a supplementary inquiry report, however at that stage again it was held that no financial loss was determined on a ground that some of the sheet piles were returned back and remaining sheet piles could be sold as scrapped and its depreciated value does not show any financial loss.

¶19The Appointing Authority has taken note of both the Inquiry Reports and in order to determine financial loss a Three Member Committee was constituted.

¶20Learned counsel for the respondents has referred contents of said reports as well as of Three Member Committee so constituted. However, it appears that petitioner was not put on notice to the action taken subsequent to the inquiry report whereby, no financial loss was caused, therefore, in case respondents proceed to act upon the Three Member Committee Report, then petitioner ought to have put on notice to submit his reply to the reasons assigned which were contrary to earlier two Inquiry Reports.

¶21Court also takes note of supplementary inquiry report wherein it was observed that there was no financial loss caused and a detail calculation was made, therefore, in case Appointing Authority wants to take a contrary view, it must assign reasons however, there is no document on record which assigns such reason except by the impugned order financial loss was allegedly determined.

¶22No opportunity was granted to the petitioner to confront with any communication or reason to take a contrary view to the first inquiry and supplementary inquiry report, therefore, Court is of the view that impugned orders require interference. Principles of natural justice were violated as well as decision making process became defective. Appellate Authority has also, therefore, committed error.

¶23Accordingly impugned orders dated 23.9.2022 and 20.2.2025 are set aside and matter is remanded to Disciplinary Authority to commence inquiry at the stage to confront the petitioner with reasons to take a contrary view to Inquiry Reports whereby, no financial loss was determined including Three Members Report.

¶24With aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 09.7.2025 SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad