Santosh Kumar Pandey v. The State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 795 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Sneh Pandey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶1Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Geeta Saket, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶2A very short point arises for consideration by this Court as to whether in the matter of exercise of power of review under Rule 14 of the U.P. Government Servants (Disciplin and Appeal) Rules, 1999, petitioner has stood discriminated against as review petitions of identically placed two employees qua final punishment of termination from service, were allowed whereas the review petition of the petitioner was got dismissed in a very cursory manner.

¶3Present petitioner Santosh Kumar Pandey was awarded with the final punishment of dismissal from service which may not have barred the petitioner from seeking employment in future. From the order of punishment dated 05.07.2023 brought on record as Annexure No.1 to the petition, I find that petitioner was held to be guilty of the charges basically for not meeting the charges by submitting reply before the inquiry officer despite opportunities given to him. The charges were claimed to have amounted to misconduct within the meaning of Government Servants Rules, 1956. The charge was that petitioner despite upon being relieved on 25.06.2018 pursuant to the order of transfer dated

31.05.2018, failed to join at the transferred place and even upon being served with the notice dated 23.10.2023 to report for duty within three days, but he failed to report for duty even after six months which affected the work of the Government in District Gorakhpur.

¶4Since the petitioner failed to submit reply, the charges were held to be proved and ultimate penalty of dismissal from service was awarded. Petitioner applied for review of the decision of major penalty taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule 14 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 on 05.04.2024 taking a plea that the inquiry officer proceeded to submit report without fixing any date for oral inquiry to be held in the matter of disciplinary proceedings drawn as per procedure laid under Section 7 of the 1999 Rules and further that petitioner was never paid subsistence allowance and hence the action taken was also bad because the petitioner could not have participated in the inquiry for non-payment of subsistence allowance. Petitioner also referred to certain letters dated 01.06.2018, 28.06.2018, 11.07.2018, 16.07.2019, 31.07.2019 and 20.08.2019 for short request for examination and cross examination but the inquiry officer even negated those letters of Joint Development Commissioner, Gorakhpur dated 16.07.2019 and 01.08.2019. It is claimed that while the inquiry officer took notice of the two letters dated

16.07.2019 and 01.08.2019 but did not fix any date. Admittedly, it is a case where major penalty has been imposed and hence the Rules laying down the procedure, to be specific Rule 7 of 1999 Rules were required to be followed as the inquiry officer holds position of an adjudicatory authority. Inquiry officer is bound in law to evaluate and appreciate the evidence available before it and to record evidence of the delinquent employee as well as of the departmental witness qua the charges before it comes to conclude that delinquent charged officer was guilty of the charges.

¶5Upon perusal of the inquiry report that has been brought on record along with the show cause notice as Anneuxre No.15 to the petition there is no recital to the effect that any date, time and place was fixed for the petitioner to appear before him to get his statement recorded.

¶6It appears that inquiry officer acted more in haste to comply with the directions of the State authority contained in the letter dated 04.07.2019 and the directions of the High Court dated 28.05.2019 to conclude the inquiry instead of holding inquiry as per procedure meant and prescribed for under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999. It appears that inquiry officer led to conclude that non-reply to the chargesheet would amount to acceptance of the guilt and hence it will result in indicting charged officer ipso facto.

¶7I am afraid, this is not the law applicable to disciplinary proceedings in service jurisprudence where the proceedings are governed under statute rule.

¶8In the case of Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. & others, (2008) (4) ADJ 58, the Court has very clearly held that oral inquiry is sine qua non in matter of disciplinary proceedings if drawn against the delinquent employee for major penalty. This Court in the case of Kishor Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (Writ - A No.- 10177 of 2019) decided on 9th October, 2023 has held vide paragraph 12 thus: "12. In my above view, I find support in the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari vs. State of UP & ors; 2008 (4) ADJ 58, wherein the Bench has relied upon an earlier division bench judgment in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director & anr, MANU/UP/0757/1999 in which it was held that imposition of penalty in the nature of major penalty without holding inquiry was bad. The said judgment came to be affirmed by Supreme Court in SLP as the SLP against the judgment stood dismissed on 16.08.2000. Citing the aforesaid judgment and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP & anr vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava; 1997 (1) LLJ 831, the Division Bench in the case of Salahuddin Ansari (supra) vide paragraphs 11, 13 and 14, held thus: "11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541, considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills & others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal & others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 06.05.2005.

¶13The aforesaid exposition of law makes it clear that the delinquent employee has a right to defend himself at different stages. When the charge sheet is served upon him, he has a right to submit his reply and in case he does not submit reply, that itself would not amount to admission of guilt or that the charge stand proved. If the allegations are serious and may result in major penalty, the disciplinary authority may appoint Inquiry Officer. Such Inquiry Officer, thereafter would have to fix a date for oral evidence. At this stage the delinquent employee has a right to participate in the oral inquiry, examine witnesses, if produced by the department, and after the evidence of the department is completed, the delinquent employee may produce evidence in his defence. During the course of oral inquiry, the delinquent employee has right to participate at every stage and date and if there is any failure in participation on one or more occasions, the Inquiry Officer cannot deny him participation from the subsequent stage. The delinquent employee can participate at subsequent other stage also. The Inquiry Officer, after completion of oral inquiry, will submit its report after discussing the entire material and if any charge is proved, the disciplinary authority shall supply a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee and he would again have a right to submit reply to the inquiry report.

¶14Non holding of oral inquiry, therefore, is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment."

¶9Thus a disciplinary proceeding qua charges that may invite major penalty, in the absence of oral inquiry is per se bad and, therefore, any consequential action pursuant thereto is liable to be held void ab initio. In other words, the Courts hold that in the matters where the rule contemplates full fledged inquiry inclusive of oral inquiry even in the cases where the replies to the chargesheet have not been submitted, it is imperative on the part of the inquiry officer to hold oral enquiry and, therefore, in the absence of oral enquiry, inquiry report if submitted, it deserves to be quashed and so also the resultant action. In the case of Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, the Supreme Court vide paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 has held thus: "13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank

(2009) 2 SCC 570 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat (2013) 4 SCC 301.

¶14In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads 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 contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.

¶15We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. ...

¶19The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case [(2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record..."

¶15Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772, wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha13 are as follows:- "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. ...

¶33As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet."

¶16In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra, this Court held that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:- "42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992], held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held.

¶43Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under : (AIR p. 1862, para 12) "12. ... There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishments indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that article [, nor prior to that]."

¶44In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 299 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 152 : AIR 1997 SC 2148] this Court dealt with the issue and held as under: "... a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of (sic) nor, remains of no consequence."

¶45In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice. (emphasis supplied)

¶10The principle of compliance of prescribed procedure and to act in the same manner as prescribed under the rules, is a well settled legal position in matters of discharge of duties by administrative authorities. In the case of Tata Chemical Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (2015) 11 SCC 628 and Krishna Rai v Banaras Hindu University (2022) 8 SCC 713, it has been held that when a procedure is laid down to do a thing then it should be done in that manner alone.

¶11Now turning to the order of review which is impugned in this petition, I find that like petitioner, one Arvind Kumar Jain was also held guilty of the charges and upon review being preferred by him, the Governor has been pleased to review the decision of termination from service by only recording a finding to the effect that upon perusal of records, he finds that case for termination of service was not made out. The relevant paragraph of the order passed at the behest of the Governor dated 14.02.2024 is reproduced hereinunder: उ्त रा्ऺ देशाशासन ्ष ाम् यािवकासाअनुभाग-1 संख् या-R-55/38-1-2024-560/2018 लखनऊ: िदनांका14 फरवरी, 2024 कायार्लय-्ञ ाप ्श ीाअरिवन् दाकु माराजैन, तत् कालीनाउपायु्व ा(्श मारोजगार), जनपदाबांदाासम् ्ऺ िता"सेवाासमाप् त" के ािवरू ्ध ा शासनाके ाकायार्लया्ञ ापािदनांका21.06.2018 ्ष ाराास् थानान् तिरताकरतेाहु एाउपायु्व ा(्श मारोजगार), बांदााके ा पदापरातैनातािकयाागयााऔराआयु्व , ्ष ाम् यािवकासाके ाप्ऴ ािदनांका25.06.2018 ्ष ारााकायर्मु्व ाकरािदयाा गया, परन् तुाइनके ा्ष ारााउ्व ापदापरायोगदानानहीािकयाागया।ालगभगा06 माहाकाासमयाकाा?ि तीताहोनेाके ा उपरान् ताभीानवीनातैनातीाके ास् थानापरायोगदानानाकरनेाआिदाके ािलएाशासनाके ाकायार्लया्ञ ापासंख् या-आर -280/38-1-2019-560/2018, िदनांका20.02.2019 ्ष ाराािनलिम् बताकराअनुशासिनकाकायर्वाहीासंिस् थता करतेाहु येासंयु्व ाआयु्व ा(्ऺ शासन), ्ष ाम् यािवकासाकोाजांचाअिधकारीानािमताकराशासनाके ाएकाअन् याप्ऴ ा संख् या-आर-281(1)/38-1-2019-560/2018, िदनांका20.02.2019 ्ष ारााआरोपाप्ऴ ािनगर्तािकयाागया। 2-तत् कमामेंासंयु्व ाआयु्व ा(्ऺ शासन), ्ष ाम् यािवकासा्ष ारााअपनेाप्ऴ ासंख् या-4039/वै०स०ा/ सं०आ०ा(्ऺ ा 0)/2019-20, िदनांका26.08.2019 ्ष ारााजांचाआख् यााउपलब् धाकरायीागयी, िजसमेंाअपचारीाअिधकारीापरा अिधरोिपताआरोपाकोापूणर्ारू पासेािस्ध ापायाागया।ािस्ध ापायेागयेाआरोपाके ासम् बन् धामेंाशासनाके ाप्ऴ ासंख् या -1456/38-1-2019-560/2018 िदनांका18.09.2019 ्ष ारााअपचारीाअिधकारीा्श ीाअरिवन् दाकु माराजैनाकाा अ?् यावेदनामांगाागया, तत् कमामेंाअपचारीाअिधकारीाके ाप्ऴ ािदनांका03.01.2020 ्ष ारााअ?् यावेदनाउपलब् धा करायाागया। 3-अपचारीाअिधकारीाके ािवरू ्ध ासंिस् थताअनुशासिनकाकायर्वाहीामेंाउ०्ऺ ०ालोकासेवााआयोग, ्ऺ यागराजाकीा सहमिताके ाउपरान् तािस्ध ापायेागयेाआरोप, उनके ा्ष ारााअपनेापदीयादाियत् वों , कतर्?ि ों ाकाािन?ष ापूवर्कािनवर्हनाना करने, िदयेागयेािदशाािनदरॏशों ाकाापालनानाकरनेाएवंाकमर्चारीाआचरणािनयमावलीाके ािनयमों ाकााघोराउल् लंघना िकयेाजानेाहते ुाशासनाके ाकायार्लया्ञ ापासंख् या-553/38-1-2021-560/2018, िदनांका05.08.2021 ्ष ाराा ्शी अरिवन्द कुमार जैन को "सेवा समािप्त" का दण्ड िदया गया। 4-शासन के उ्व दण्डादेश के िवरू्ध ्शी जैन ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺत्यावेदन िदनांक 12.10. 2023 ्षारा उ०्ऺ० सरकारी सेवक (अनुशासन एवं अपील) िनयमावली-1999 के िनयम-14 के अन्तगर्त पुनिवलोकन (िर्िू ) िकये जाने का अनुरोध िकया गया तथा ्शी अरिवन्द कुमार जैन ्षारा मा० उच्च न्यायालय, लखनऊ बेंच में िरट यािचका संख्या-24842/2021 अरिवन्द कुमार जैन बनाम उ०्ऺ० राज्य व अन्य योिजत की गयी, िजसमें मा० उच्च न्यायालय ्षारा िदनांक 02.01.2024 को सुनवाई के प्ाात पािरत आदेश का कायर्कारी अंश िनम्नवत है :- "In view of the above, without entering into merits of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Respondent No.1 (Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development, Civil Secretariat, U.P. Lucknow) is directed to consider and decide the Review Application dated 12.10.2023 pending against him in accordance with law expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks from the date certified copy of this order is placed before him. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of." मा० उच्च न्यायालय के उ्व आदेश के अनुपालन में ्शी अरिवन्द कुमार जैन ्षारा िदनांक 06.01.2024 को पुनः ्ऺत्यावेदन शासन में ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया। 5- ्ऺश्नगत ्ऺकरण में मा० उच्च न्यायालय ्षारा पािरत उ्व आदेश िदनांक 02.01.2024 12.10. के कम में अपचारी अिधकारी ्षारा उपलब्ध कराये गये उ्व ्ऺत्यावेदन िदनांक 2023 एवं 06.01.2024 एवं प्ऴावली में उपलब्ध जॉच आख्या तथा अन्य सुसंगत अिभलेखों के परी्षणोपरान्त पाया गया िक राज्य िचिकत्सा पिरषद की संस्तुित दण्डादेश पािरत करते समय होती तो अवश्य ही ्शी जैन के िवरू्ध "सेवा समािप्त" का दण्डादेश पािरत िकये जाने का औिचत्य नहीं उत्पन्न होता। उ्व के दृि्िगत उ०्ऺ० सरकारी सेवक (अनुशासन एवं अपील) िनयमावली-1999 के िनयम-14 के अन्तगर्त सम्यक िवचारोपरान्त शासन के कायार्लय ्ञाप संख्या-553/38-1-2021-560/2018, िदनांक 05.08.2021 ्षारा अपचारी अिधकारी पर अिधरोिपत दण्ड "सेवा समािप्त" को ्शी राज्यपाल एत्षारा समाप्त करती हैं। (emphasis added)

¶12In the matter of one Adesh Kumar, I find, when he preferred a review taking a plea that order of maximum penalty deserved to be reviewed and on the basis of the medical papers, his absence from leave between the period 23.09.2014 and 01.10.2015 be condoned as leave without pay, review came to be allowed. Vide paragraph 5, the reason to review the order terminating the service of that Adesh Kumar in the order of review dated 06.09.2023 is reproduced hereinunder: "4-अपचारी अिधकारी ्शी आदेश कुमार ्षारा अपने ्ऺत्यावेदन िदनांक 31.07.2023 (्षारा आयु्व, ्षाम्य िवकास, उ०्ऺ० के प्ऴ संख्या-2270/स्था0्ऺ0/2023 िदनांक 04.08.2023) के माध्यम से उपरो्व दण्ड को समाप्त िकये जाने के सम्बन्ध में पुनिवचार िकये जाने एवं ्षाम्य िवकास िवभाग में योगदान कराये जाने का अनुरोध िकया गया है। ्ऺश्नगत ्ऺकरण में अपचारी अिधकारी ्षारा उपलब्ध कराये गये उ्व ्ऺत्यावेदन िदनांक

31.07.2023 एवं प्ऴावली में उपलब्ध जॉच आख्या तथा अन्य सुसंगत अिभलेखों का सम्यक परी्षण िकया गया। परी्षणोपरान्त उ्व ्ऺत्यावेदन में उिल्लिखत उनकी िचिकत्सीय िववशता के कारण योगदान नही कर पाने सम्बंधी तथ्यों / कथनों पर मानवीय दृि्िकोण अपनाते हुए उ०्ऺ० सरकारी सेवक (अनुशासन एव अपील) िनयमावली 1999 के िनयम-14 के अन्तगर्त पुनिवचार कर शासन के कायार्लय ्ञाप संख्या-178/38-1-2021-3563/2017 िदनांक 16.06.2021 ्षारा अपचारी अिधकारी पर अिधरोिपत दण्ड सेवा से हटाने जो भिवष्य में सेवा से िनरिहत नहीं करता हो" को ्शी राज्यपाल एतद्षारा समाप्त करती हैॆ। 5- ्शी आदेश कुमार, तत्कालीन खण्ड िवकास अिधकारी, जनपद बुलन्दशहर को िदनांक 16.08.2017 से सेवा में इस शतर् के साथ बहाल कर योगदान कराये जाने की अनुमित ्ऺदान की जाती है िक िदनांक

16.08.2017 से अब तक की अविध में ये िकसी वृि्त/ ्ि ापार में संलग्न नही है उ्व अविध में वे िकसी अपराध में सजा ्ऺाप्त / जेल में िनरू्ध नही रहे हो तथा उ्व अविध में उनके ्षारा िवदेश या्ऴा नहीं की गयी हो। (emphasis added)

¶13Thus, upon perusal of the reasonings assigned in both the orders, I find that the power of review has been exercised in a most casual manner just by referring to a fact that upon examination of the records and inquiry report and other connected material, petitioner/review applicant was found to be genuinely restrained from performing his duties for the period in question and hence the order deserved to be reviewed, however, in the case of petitioner where the petitioner had taken specific plea that oral inquiry was not held as per the procedure the reviewing authority hold that plea was fully met in the inquiry report by the inquiry officer and, therefore, review deserved to be rejected.

¶14The order records that petitioner took the plea that for certain compelling and unavoidable circumstances, he could not have been reported for duty even upon being transferred, upon which plea the inquiry has been conducted and report was submitted and hence punishment was awarded and that employee once transfer may not have right of choice posting and that petitioner was guilty of non-compliance of the transfer orders but rightfully, the inquiry officer instead of deciding his representations that were made by him on 13.05.2018, 01.06.2018 and

28.06.2018 disciplinary proceeding was instituted against him on

22.02.2019 and the plea further taken by the petitioner that he was not paid subsistence allowance though referred to in the order but there is no discussion upon the same, nor there is any consideration thereof more especially looking to the inquiry report in which there is no discussion of any material at all. Paragraph 6 of the order impugned is reproduced hereinunder: "6-उल्लेखनीय है िक ्शी सन्तोष कुमार पाण्डेय के उ्व पुनिवलोकन ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴों िदनांक 05.09.2023,

01.02.2024, 05.04.2024 एवं िदनांक 30.05.2024 पर शासन स्तर पर सम्ष रूप से िवचार िकया गया और यह पाया गया िक उ्व ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴों में ऐसा कोई िबन्दु िनिहत नहीं है, िजसे जांच अिधकारी ्षारा अथवा दण्डादेश पािरत करने के पूवर् अनुशासिनक ्ऺािधकारी ्षारा िवचािरत न िकया गया हो। इसके अितिर्व यह भी स्वयं िस्ध है िक ्ि ि्वगत सुनवाई हेतु अनेक अवसर ्ऺदान िकये जाने के बावजूद ्शी सन्तोष कुमार पाण्डेय ्ष ारा इन अवसरों का उपयोग नहीं िकया गया। यह िस्थित भी उनके िवरू्ध िस्ध अनुशासनहीनता के आरोप के कम में एक अन्य अनुशासनहीनता को ही स्थािपत करती है। (emphasis added)

¶15Upon perusal of paragraph 6, it becomes apparent that the authority has not applied its mind to the review application. What discrimination in treatment appears to be is that in other two cases of Arvind Kumar Jain and Adesh Kumar the discretion is exercised without discussing inquiry report in those two cases and yet imposition of the major penalty has been reviewed, whereas, in the case of petitioner the order of dismissal from service without having any adverse impact in future has been maintained.

¶16In my considered view, this is a clear case of the discrimination at the end of the State while I do not approve the manner in which order dated

14.02.2024 in the matter of Arvind Kumar Jain and 16.04.2023 in the matter of Adesh Kumar were passed reviewing the order of penalty, I equally do not approve the order passed at the behest of the Governor in the case of petitioner rejecting his review petition I may further observe that insofar as the Arvind Kumar Jain's case is concerned, he was also indicted in inquiry by the inquiry officer in the domestic inquiry and State proceeded to first punish him with the maximum penalty of dismissal from service like petitioner but it reviewed the penalty in that case. I may add here that in so far as the petitioner's case is concerned the entire procedure adopted by the inquiry officer was de hors the rules and hence, I quash the order passed at the behest of the Governor dated 09.11. 2024 and so also the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing major penalty upon the petitioner dated 05.07.2023, the respondents are directed to give similar treatment as given to the petitioner Arvind Kumar Jain by reinstating petitioner in service.

¶17However, in the event respondents decide to hold inquiry afresh in the matter of petitioner then the respondents should also review its order dated 14.04.2024 passed in the matter of Arvind Kumar Jain. So far as the payment of salary is concerned petitioner's period of service may be treated towards the post retirement dues and other dues including notional benefit etc. but petitioner would be entitled for condoning the same as leave without pay.

¶18Appropriate order shall be passed by the appropriate authority within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 S.A. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad