Allahabad High Court
RAMESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A domestic enquiry that lacks any oral inquiry or evidentiary support is vitiated, and the resulting penalty order must be quashed.
Summary
The appellant, a former Assistant Clerk, was suspended in 1996 and served a charge‑sheet but was not provided the relevant documents despite repeated requests. An enquiry report was filed on 28‑Feb‑1997 without any oral inquiry or evidence, leading to a penalty of reversion to basic pay with loss of increments. The appellant argued that the domestic enquiry was fundamentally defective as the management failed to prove the charge, and that the enquiry should be quashed. The court examined precedent that an ex‑parte enquiry still requires the management to discharge the burden of proof and held that the absence of any inquiry or evidence vitiated the proceedings. Consequently, the single judge’s order restoring the enquiry was set aside, the penalty order quashed, and the appellant was directed to receive all consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether a domestic enquiry conducted without any oral inquiry or evidentiary material can be considered valid.
- Whether the burden of proving the charge rests on the management in an ex‑parte disciplinary proceeding.
- Whether a penalty order based on such a defective enquiry can be quashed despite the lapse of many years.
- Whether the earlier order restoring the enquiry proceedings should be set aside.
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- domestic enquiry
- ex‑parte enquiry
- burden of proof
- quashing penalty
- procedural fairness
- lapse of time
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1130 of 2026
Ramesh Kumar Srivastava
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
District Magistrate And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Narendra Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Shri Narendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the original
petitioner/appellant and Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order of the learned single judge dated
02.09.2026 in Ramesh Kumar Srivastava vs D.M. Sonebhadra & Ors.,
2026:AHC:183867. By that order, the learned single judge has disposed
of the writ petition and restored the disciplinary proceedings to the stage
of submission of enquiry report.
3. Learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant would submit, in
the present case, there is absolutely no enquiry conducted. No evidence
was led to prove the charge. Therefore, the whole enquiry proceeding was
vitiated. The learned single judge has erred in saving such a defective
enquiry proceeding and the learned single judge has further erred in not
quashing the entire domestic enquiry proceeding.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would
submit, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The petitioner is at
liberty to raise all grounds before the disciplinary authority.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, the matter is very old. At the relevant time, the petitioner was
working on the post of Assistant Clerk at District Collectorate,
Sonbhadra. He was placed under suspension on 22.10.1996 and a charge-
SPLA No. 1130 of 2026
2
sheet was served on him, the next day, on 23.10.1996. The relevant
documents had not been supplied to him. Hence, the petitioner moved an
application on 28.11.1996 seeking supply of relevant documents. Since
such copies may not have been supplied, the petitioner made further
representations on 06.02.1997 and 19.02.1997, reiterating his demand to
be supplied documents.
6. In such circumstances, the petitioner was aggrieved by the enquiry
report dated 28.02.1997 submitted by the Enquiry Officer - without
conducting any enquiry. It led to the punishment order dated 05.03.1997
whereby he was awarded punishment of reversion to his basic pay with
stoppage of three annual increments, with cumulative effect.
7. Undeniably, even though the petitioner/appellant may not have
responded to the notice that may have been issued by the Enquiry Officer
and even though the petitioner may have therefore not participated in the
domestic enquiry proceeding, he may have only exposed himself to be
proceeded ex-parte. However, in an ex-parte domestic enquiry, the
burden to bring home the charge may remained on the management. That
essential requirement of law may remain unaltered and unaffected by the
errant conduct shown by the petitioner/appellant/delinquent employee in
the conduct of the domestic enquiry.
8. Consequentially, the burden that was otherwise cast on the
management to lead evidence - documentary and/or oral, to prove the
charge would have to be performed by the management by leading
evidence. The management failed to discharge its burden by concluding
the enquiry proceeding. By reaching adverse conclusion as to the charge,
against the petitioner/appellant/delinquent officer, the Enquiry Officer a
fundamental and incurable error in the departmental enquiry proceeding.
Suffice to note, there is no admission of guilt made by the
petitioner/appellant.
9. Seen in that light, the decision of the coordinate bench in Janardan
Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. & Ors., Special Appeal No. 631 of 2007
decided on 20.02.2020, squarely covers the issue. In that case as well,
facts were noted as below:
SPLA No. 1130 of 2026
3
"7. Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who issued
notice to appellant but he did not submit reply to the charge-sheet.
Thereupon Enquiry Officer straightaway submitted Enquiry Report dated
15.08.1986 holding charges proved and then punishment order was
passed. Enquiry Report shows that it has discussed that opportunity was
given to appellant to submit reply to the charge-sheet but he did not
cooperate in enquiry by submitting reply to the charge-sheet and,
therefore, Enquiry Officer proceeded by treating charges self proved. It is
argued that this procedure adopted by Enquiry Officer is not consistent
with law laid down in number of authorities.
8. Now the sole question up for consideration is "whether non holding of
oral inquiry before imposing major penalty of removal would vitiate the
entire proceeding including order of punishment."
10. Considering the entire gamut of law laid down by the Supreme Court
in Meenglas Tea Estate vs The workmen, AIR (1963) SC 1719, State
of U.P. vs C.S. Sharma, AIR (1968) SC 158, Punjab National Bank vs
A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR (1960) SC 160 and S.C. Girotra vs
United Commercial Bank, (1995) Supp. (3) SCC 212, a coordinate
bench also took note of the earlier decisions of this Court and reached a
conclusion that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated. Accordingly, the
penalty order was quashed.
11. In the present case as well, the same result must follow. The learned
single judge has erred in principle in not taking note of the fact that in
absence of any oral enquiry and in absence of any evidence received by
the Enquiry Officer, no conclusion of guilt may have been reached, in
complete absence of admission by the petitioner/appellant, as to the
charge levelled against him. Too much time has passed to now allow for
fresh enquiry to arise. In fact, it may not be possible to allow any enquiry
to arise at this late stage, almost 30 years after the occurrence.
12. Accordingly, the present intra-Court appeal is allowed. The order of
the learned single judge is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is
allowed. The penalty order is set aside. Let all consequential benefits
arising to the petitioner-appellant be computed and paid out, within three
SPLA No. 1130 of 2026
4
months from today.
13. Let a copy of this order be placed on the record of Writ - A No.
16404 of 1997.
14. No order as to costs.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
October 1, 2026
Prakhar
Digitally signed by :-
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…