Allahabad High Court
Santosh Yadav vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 19 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140714-DB Reserved Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4687 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Yadav Respondent :- Union of India and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Sunil Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Naveen Chandra Gupta Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
(Per : Arun Bhansali, CJ)
1. This petition is directed against order dated 26.11.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('Tribunal'), whereby the Original Application ('OA') filed by the petitioner against orders dated 31.10.2018 and 31.12.2019, whereby the petitioner was visited with penalty of removal from service and the Appellate Authority remanded back the matter to the Inquiry Officer for de novo inquiry from the stage of examination of the prosecution witnesses, has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as GDS (Packer) in TB Clinic of Post Office, Basti. He was served with an order dated 30.09.2016, whereby he was put off from duty under the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 and was ordered to be paid 25% TRCA. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 07.11.2016 with the allegations that at the time of appointment, the petitioner submitted the High School Marksheet passed in the year 2012 with date of birth 01.03.1994. It was alleged that before that, the petitioner with the name of Santosh Kumar son of Shri Ram Kewal appeared in the High School Examination in 1998, wherein the date of birth was registered as 1984 and thereby, he concealed the real date of birth.
3. After the inquiry was conducted, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The petitioner was issued a memo by the respondents requiring him to submit his representation on the findings of the Inquiry Report. Along with the memo, copy of the Inquiry Report was also supplied. The petitioner submitted his representation reiterating findings recorded in his favour and submitted that taking into consideration the Inquiry Report, the order of putting him off from duty may be revoked. The respondent No. 4 passed order dated 31.10.2018 imposing the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No 3. The Appellate Authority, considering the grounds raised in the appeal, observed that the Disciplinary Authority has violated the principles of natural justice, however, the Authority, instead of setting aside the order of penalty imposed by respondent No. 4, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back directing the de novo inquiry.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the OA was filed, wherein it was indicated that based on a complaint by one Brijendra Kumar Singh son of Shri Mahindra Kumar Singh to the higher authorities regarding date of birth of the petitioner being 20.03.1984, the inquiry was initiated and the Disciplinary Authority found charges proved though the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner. Further submissions have been made regarding non-compliance of the statutory provisions by the Disciplinary Authority, wherein the reasons for disagreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer were neither recorded nor communicated and therefore, the order was bad. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was also questioned on account of the same not dealing with the issues raised and taking an easy way out and remanding back the matter to the Inquiry Officer for de novo inquiry. It is prayed that the orders impugned be set aside.
5. The respondents contested the plea raised and supported the orders impugned with the submissions that looking to the fact that the petitioner had suppressed his actual date of birth, the order passed did not call for any interference.
6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority did not follow the proper procedure, as if he disagreed with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, he was required to prepare a disagreement note and serve the same upon the petitioner and after seeking his response, could have passed the order imposing punishment, however, no such disagreement note was prepared and served on the petitioner and straight away punishment was imposed, which was against law. Qua the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it has power to remand back the matter for de novo inquiry if the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as opinion formed by the Inquiry Officer are not found in accordance with evidence and law, which power was in consonance with provisions of Rule 27(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ('Rules, 1965'). The Tribunal, however, found that the Appellate Authority has not set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority while directing for de novo inquiry, it modified the order whereby the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority was quashed and to that extent, the order passed by the Appellate Authority was modified without interfering with its order passed for de novo inquiry.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order for de novo inquiry passed by the Appellate Authority. Submissions have been made that the reasons indicated for remanding back the matter for de novo inquiry are not sufficient for ordering de novo inquiry inasmuch as the only observation made by the Appellate Authority pertains to non-consideration of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which even otherwise, were supporting the case of the petitioner. Submissions were made that it was the case of the petitioner that the marksheet, sought to be allegedly belonging to the petitioner, does not pertain to him and the same pertains to some other candidate and the said witnesses also had indicated the same aspects and therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was required to be set aside and there was no reason to remand back the matter for de novo inquiry after a passage of over 8 years since the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner.
8. Further submissions have been made that the Appellate Authority itself could have taken into consideration the statements and record, if any, based on the same, there was no necessity to order for a de novo inquiry. The Tribunal, on its part, though found that the Appellate Authority had the power to order for de novo inquiry, however, did not examine whether in the given circumstances, the order was justified and therefore on that count, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. It was prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal, to the extent of remanding back the matter for de novo inquiry, be set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced instructions and supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that based on the complaint, the inquiry was initiated and the Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner regarding his incorrect date of birth/suppression of material facts at the time of seeking employment were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, admittedly, did not agree with the report of the Inquiry Officer and issued notice to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the response filed, ordered for his removal from service. The Appellate Authority though found that disagreement was not conveyed to the petitioner, based on the material available before it, came to the conclusion that matter required de novo inquiry and has passed the order, which does not call for any interference. Further submissions have been made that the plea raised, with regard to non-consideration by the Appellate Authority of the available material, has no substance and the petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
11. Undisputed facts are that on a charge-sheet being issued to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer held in favour of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, in terms of Rules, 1965, was required to communicate the reasons for disagreement before passing any order imposing punishment, which reasons for disagreement were admittedly not communicated by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner, rather the same even were not recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and straight away punishment was imposed for removal from service. The action of the Disciplinary Authority apparently being in violation of Rule 15(2) of Rules, 1965, could not be sustained.
12. Aggrieved of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, when the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority, after noticing the contentions raised by the petitioner, came to the conclusion and ordered as under :
ÞvihydrkZ }kjk mBk;s x;s mDr vihy ds vk/kkjksa dh leh{kk tkWp i=koyh] lgk;d v/kh{kd Mkd?kj iwohZ mie.My dh vk[;k ,oa fVIi.kh rFkk vkjksi i= ds rF;ksa dk ewY;kadu djus ij ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vihydrkZ }kjk vius vihy vk/kkj foUnq ds iSjk 26] 27 ,oa 28 esa mfYyf[kr fd;k gS fd Mkd losZ{kd jkT; lk{kh la0 1 o jkT; lk{kh la0 2 us tkWp ifj"kn ds le{k Li"V dgk gS fd larks"k dqekj ,oa larks"k ;kno uked nks O;fDr gks ldrs gSaA ;g rF; xzke iapk;r nqc[kjk ds fuokZpd ukekoyh 2015 ds dze la0 1549 o 1571 ftls vihydrkZ }kjk vihy ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ls Li"V gSA bl foUnq ij tkWp vf/kdkjh dh tkWp vk[;k iw.kZr;k ewd gSA blds vykok vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh us tkWp vf/kdkjh dh tkWp vk[;k ij vlgefr ds foUnqvksa dks mfYyf[kr fd;s fcuk gh cpko izfrosnu ekaWx dj n.Mkns'k Kkiu tkjh djrs le; tkWp vf/kdkjh dh tkWp vk[;k ls vlger gksdj n.Mkns'k Kkiu la0 ,@larks"k ;kno@Mhih@VhCkhlh@16 fnukad 31-10-2018 dks tkjh fd;k gS tks fd izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds izfrdwy gSA mijksDr ifjfLFk;ksa ij lE;d fopkj djrs gq, vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s n.M esa gLr{ksi dk vkSfpR; ikrk gwaWA vr% eSa ikjl ukFk] v/kh{kd Mkd?kj] cLrh e.My cLrh] lgk;d v/kh{kd Mkd?kj iwohZ mie.My cLrh ds mDr n.Mkns'k esa gLr{ksi djrs gq, vihydrkZ }kjk izLrqr vihy dks vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj djrs gq,] vfHk;kstu xokgksa ds ijh{k.k Lrj ls ¼ fMUkksoks ½ u;s fljs ls dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk vkns'k nsrk gwaWAÞ
13. A perusal of the above would reveal that the Appellate Authority observed that the prosecution witnesses No. 1 and 2 clearly stated before the Inquiry Officer that Santosh Kumar and Santosh Yadav may be two different persons and the said fact is apparent from Serial Nos. 1449 and 1571 of the Voter List of Gram Panchayat-Dubkhara and that on the said aspect, the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer was silent.
14. The Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that non-communication of the reasons for disagreement were against principles of natural justice and consequently, it found justification for interfering with the punishment imposed, however, it allowed the appeal partially and ordered for de novo inquiry from the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses.
15. As would be noticed, the only reason indicate by the Appellate Authority is that the report of the Inquiry Officer was silent on the aspect of the Santosh Kumar and Santosh Yadav being two different persons, which fact was substantiated from the Voters List of the Gram Panchayat. For the said reason, remanding back the matter for de novo inquiry from the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses, to say the least, is wholly unnecessary and in fact, misuse of power to remand back the matter even if the same exists under the provisions of Rule 27(3) of the Rules, 1965.
16. It is well settled that the Appellate Authority has the power to pass appropriate order based on the evidence available on record and once the Appellate Authority has noticed that material is available on record pertaining to the subject matter, there was absolutely no reason to remand back the matter to Inquiry Officer and that also at the stage of prosecution witnesses, so as to give an opportunity to the respondents to improve their case before the Inquiry Officer.
17. The fact that over 8 years have passed since the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, is also a relevant factor on the said aspect of the matter and therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority ordering for remand of the matter, cannot be sustained.
18. The cursory manner of dealing with the appeal is also apparent from the fact that the Appellate Authority did not set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering for removal from service. In case, the order of removal from service continues, no de novo inquiry against the removed employee could be held. To the said extent, the Tribunal has rectified the mistake, however, the Tribunal has only examined the power of the Appellate Authority to remand back the matter, however, whether such power should have been exercised in the circumstances of the case, has not at all been examined by the Tribunal and as noticed hereinbefore, the remand of the matter was wholly unjustified.
19. In view of the above discussion, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal to the extent, the same has upheld the order of remand cannot be sustained.
20. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 255 of 2021 is set aside to the extent it has upheld the order of the Appellate Authority remanding back the matter for de novo inquiry.
21. The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 31.12.2019, to the extent of remanding back the matter to the Inqiury Officer for de novo inquiry is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order, based on the material available on record. It is made clear that the observations made by the Appellate Authority regarding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority being in violation of principles of natural justice are upheld.
22. Needful shall be done by the Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner with the Appellate Authority, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.08.2025.
Mukesh Pal
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)