SURESH KUMAR BHARTIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 2319 of 2026

Suresh Kumar Bharti
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Pandey, Vineet
                                 Pandey

Court No. - 32
            HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri P.K.
Asthana, learned Standing Counsel and S/Sri R.P. Pandey and Mohnish
Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vineet Pandey, learned advocates
for respondents.

2. This Court has passed following order on 18.03.2026, however, till date
no counter affidavit is filed, therefore, opportunity to file the same is
closed :-

     "It is submitted by Sri Shivam Yadav, learned
     counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
     was Law Officer in Varanasi Development Authority
     and on frivolous grounds the petitioner has been
     punished with major penalty of stoppage of two
     increment      with    cumulative      effect.    One    of    the
     ground for punishment is that the petitioner has
     not done proper pairvi at the time of filing of
     counter affidavit and if the same was informed to
     the Vice Chairman of the VDA, then the stay order
     could have been avoided.
     Learned        counsel     for        respondent-Development
     Authority was queried as to how the Vice-Chairman
     of the Development Authority could have avoided
     an order of the Court, if Vice-Chairman could
     have        been   informed,      learned        counsel       for
                                                                        WRIA No. 2319 of 2026
                                       2


     Development Authority seeks time to file counter
     affidavit.
     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
     let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents
     within three weeks.
     List on 20th April, 2026 in top 30 cases.
     Till the next date of listing, in the event, any
     departmental promotion process is initiated, then
     the petitioner's candidature shall be considered.
     However, the result shall be kept in a sealed
     cover and shall not be opened except with the
     leave of this Court. "

3. It is well settled position of law that principles of natural justice are
required in any disciplinary proceedings which has been conducted in
present case in terms of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules,1999 wherein Rule-7 provides a detailed procedure to
conduct inquiry whereby a major punishment is proposed. Said Rule-7
also includes oral hearing, if necessary and to cross examine witnesses
also as well as Disciplinary Authority has to consider the reply of
delinquent on the inquiry report.

4. However, in present case, Court finds that impugned order which is
passed by Chief Secretary in its initial 13 pages has only considered
inquiry report, its outcome and his view and in later part of paragraph 3,
the Disciplinary Authority records that a detail reply was filed by the
petitioner to inquiry report, however, in paragraph 4, in a very vague
manner, without even giving reference to grounds mentioned in reply to
inquiry report impugned order of punishment was passed. For reference,
paragraph 3 and 4 of impugned order is quoted below :-

     "3- जाँच अधिकारी/अपर आयुक्त(प्रशासन), वाराणसी मण्डल, वाराणसी के पत्र दिनांक
     24.07.2024 द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी गयी जाँच आख्या में अपचारी अधिकारी श्री सुरेश कुमार
     भारती, विधि अधिकारी, वाराणसी विकास प्राधिकरण के विरुद्ध संस्थित आरोपों एवं अनुपूरक
     आरोपों में दोष सिद्ध पाये जाने के दृष्टिगत शासन के पत्र दिनांक 20.08.2024 के माध्यम से
     जाँच आख्या के विरुद्ध अपना अभ्यावेदन उपलब्ध कराये जाने हेतु निर्देशित किया गया। तद्क्रम
     में श्री सुरेश कुमार भारती द्वारा पत्र दिनांक 06.09.2024 के माध्यम से अभ्यावेदन उपलब्ध
                                                                                                                    WRIA No. 2319 of 2026
                                                                                   3


                                               कराते हुए आरोप संख्या-1, 2, 3, 4, व 5 और अनुपूरक आरोप संख्या-1, 2 व 3 को
                                               अभ्यावेदन में उल्लिखित तथ्यों के आलोक में निरस्त करते हुए निक्षेपित किये जाने का अनुरोध
                                               किया गया।

                                               4- उपरोक्त उल्लिखित तथ्यों एवं अभिलेखीय साक्ष्यों के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि अपचारी
                                               अधिकारी द्वारा विधि अधिकारी के रूप में अपने विभागीय कर्तव्यों एवं दायित्वों के निर्वहन एवं
                                               उच्चाधिकारियों द्वारा प्रदत्त दिशा-निर्देशों के अनुपालन में लापरवाही एवं घोर उदासीनता बरती
                                               गयी। उच्चाधिकारियों द्वारा सौंपें गये दायित्वों का समयान्तर्गत निर्वहन नहीं किया गया।
                                               अपचारी अधिकारी का अपने अधीनस्थों पर नियंत्रण नहीं है, जो एक अकुशल एवं उदासीन
                                               नियंत्रक होने का द्योतक है। अपचारी अधिकारी के द्वारा मा० न्यायालय में लंबित वादों के संबंध
                                               में प्रभावी पैरवी/कार्यवाही नहीं किया गया। विधिक कार्यों का सानुरूप संचालन व सम्पादन न
                                               कर सकने एवं उत्तर प्रदेश सरकारी सेवक आचरण नियमावली-1956 में निहित प्रावधानों के
                                               विपरीत कृत्य करने के दृष्टिगत अपचारी अधिकारी को कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी करने के
                                               पश्चात भी अपचारी अधिकारी के कृत्य में कोई सुधार परिलक्षित नहीं हुआ एवं इनके द्वारा पुनः
                                               गलती की गयी। अपचारी अधिकारी का उक्त कृत्य उत्तर प्रदेश सरकारी सेवक आचरण
                                               नियमावली-1956 के प्रावधानों के विपरीत है। इस प्रकार अपचारी अधिकारी के विरुद्ध
                                               अधिरोपित सभी 05 आरोप एवं 03 अनुपूरक आरोप सिद्ध पाये गये हैं।"

                                    5. In aforesaid circumstances, Court takes note of judgments of Supreme
                                    Court in Jai Prakash Saini vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative
                                    Federation Ltd and others, 2026 INSC 305 as well as Satyendra Singh
                                    vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 3325 wherein it is
                                    held repeatedly that Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered
                                    specific reply made by petitioner to inquiry report and deal with specific
                                    grounds that procedure prescribed under Rules of 1999 was not followed.

                                    6. In view of above, impugned punishment order dated 24.09.2025 is set
                                    aside and matter is remitted back to concerned respondent to pass a fresh
                                    order after taking note of position of law as referred in Jai Prakash Saini
                                    and Satyendra Singh (supras) as well as reply of the petitioner to the
                                    inquiry report.

                                    7. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations and
                                    directions.



                                                                                                  (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    N. Sinha




Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad