STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus SAROJ KUMAR SINHA

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 02-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 326 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
v. 
SAROJ KUMAR SINHA 
(Civil Appeal No. 254 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 02, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
I 
Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and 
Appeal) Rules, 1999: 
r. 7(5) - Charges framed against delinquent officer -
Non-supply of relevant documents to delinquent officer 
D despite repeated request - Final order of removal passed by 
the authority, despite interim direction of High Court to 
consider the representation of delinquent. - Held: Denial of 
supply of the relevant documents to the delinquent officer 
being in flagrant disregard of r. 7(5), the enquiry proceeding 
E is vitiated - The inquiry proceeding was also in violation of 
principles of natural justice and in disregard of the mandate 
under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution -
Admini~trative Law 
- Principles of natural justice - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 311 (2). 
F 
r. 7(x) - Departmental enquiry - . Chargesheet - Failure 
to reply the charge-sheet - Enquiry officer not fixing the date 
for appearance of delinquent officer for answering the charges 
- Held: Failure to fix the date being in violation of r. 7(x), such 
G inquiry is vitiated. 
H 
Charge-sheet was issued against the respondent ul 
r.7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and 
Appeal) Rules, 1999 making allegations of misconduct. He 
326 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA 
327 
was thereafter suspended. Respondent made a A 
representation demanding copies of documents relied on 
in the charge-sheet. The copies of the documents were 
not supplied to the respondent. He was asked to submit 
the reply to the charge-sheet. 
Apprehending bias, the respondent made a 8 
representation for change of the Enquiry Officer. The 
request was accepted. Respondent requested the new 
Enquiry Officer for supply of the documents. Despite 
several reminders, the documents were not supplied to 
the respondent. 
C 
The first Enquiry Officer had completed the enquiry 
report on 3.8.2001 i.e. before appointment of the second 
Enquiry Officer. The second Enquiry Officer addressed a 
communication to the Government that the enquiry report o 
given by the former Enquiry Officer was correct. 
Respondent was thereafter, served with a show cause 
notice. 
The respondent filed writ petition, challenging E 
issuance of show-cause notice. High Court declined to 
interfere in the matter stating that it was open to the 
respondent to put his case in his reply to show-cause 
notice. 
The respondent in his reply to the show-cause notice · F 
again requested supply of the relevant documents. 
Thereafter, a letter was issued directing supply of the 
relevant documents. Despite the direction, the documents 
were not supplied. 
The respondent, therefore, filed another writ petition 
making a prayer to restrain the appellant from taking any 
final decision. The High Court, by an interim order, 
directed the authority concerned, to consider the 
G 
H 
/ 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A representation of the respondent before passing of the 
final order. 
Despite the direction of the High Court, appellant 
passed the final order of removal from service. High 
8 
Court, by final order allowed the writ petition, ~irecting 
to reinstate the respondent with all consequential 
benefits. Hen_ce the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the court 
c 
HELD: 1.1 A perusal of the charges shows that the 
three charges were based on official documents/official 
communications. The relentless efforts made by the 
respondent to secure copies ·of the documents, which 
was sought to be relied upon, to prove the cha·rges. 
0 
These were denied by the department in flagrant 
disregard of the mandate of Rule 7 sub rule 5 of Uttar 
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) 
Rules, 1999. Therefore the Enquiry proceedings are 
clearly vitiated having been held in breach of the 
E mandatory sub rule (5) of Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules. [Para 
24] [343-F-H] 
1.2. The first enquiry report is vitiated also on the 
ground that the Enquiry Officer failed to fix any date for 
the appearance of the respondent to answer the 
F charges. Rule 7(x) shows that when the respondent had 
failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet, it 
was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to fix a date for 
his appearance in the enquiry. It is only in a case when 
the Government servant despite notice of the date fixed 
G 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.