OSAN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - A No. - 7245 of 2026

Osan Singh
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

The State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Arya Gautam, Atipriya Gautam, Jay
                                   Vishwanath Pandey, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)        :

Court No. - 6
                     HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard Sri VIjay Gautam, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Atipriya
Gautam, learned cousnel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2026 whereby he has
been awarded minimum pay scale for a period of three year on the basis of
the recommendation made by the inquiry officer.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority
has simply acted upon the recommendation of the inquiry officer in giving a
show cause notice to the petitioner of the proposed punishment which was
recommended by the inquiry officer which could not have been done under
the law. He submits that the domain of the inquiry officer is to furnish the
inquiry report after evaluating the evidence adduced before it by the
department as also by the delinquent employee. Inquiry officer can only hold
the delinquent employee guilty of the charges. After the inquiry report is
submitted, it lies next within the domain of the disciplinary authority to look
into the report and to either concur with the findings of the inquiry report or
take otherwise view. In the event disciplinary authority concurs with the
findings of the inquiry officer, a show cause of the proposed punishment
would be issued to the delinquent employee inviting his objection/reply.

4. In the instant case, it is submitted that after the inquiry officer submitted
his report on 13.08.2025, in which he had also made a recommendation for
the punishment of minimum pay scale for a period of three year in respect of
                                                                WRIA No. 7245 of 2026
                                   2


petitioner and so a show cause notice got issued on 27.08.2025.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Mohd. Haneef Khan vs. State of UP in Service
Single No.314 of 2010 decided on 3rd April, 2017 in which vide paragraphs
11, 12, & 13, the Court has held thus:

     "11. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that absence was not
     without any valid reason and that has been discredited by Inquiry Officer
     arbitrarily and without considering relevant material, therefore, entire
     proceedings are vitiated in law. He placed reliance on Supreme Court's
     judgment in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364.

     12. Second, it is submitted that manifest illegality committed by Inquiry
     Officer in recommending punishment of dismissal in its inquiry report
     itself and that too by looking into past record of petitioner, which was not
     a charge. In this regard he referred to Appendix I read with Rule 14(1) of
     "U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal)
     Rules, 1991" (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1991"). Aforesaid
     provision permits Inquiry Officer to make his recommendation regarding
     punishment. It reads as under:

     "APPENDIX-I

     PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL
     PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POLICE OFFICER

     Upon institution of a formal enquiry such police officer against whom the
     enquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on
     which it is proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate
     opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to
     take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges as in
     Form I appended to these Rules which shall be communicated to the
     charged police officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give
     sufficient indication to the charged police officer of the facts and
     circumstances against whim. he shall be required, within a reasonable
     time, to put in, in a written statement of his defence and to state whether
     he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry Officer
                                                                WRIA No. 7245 of 2026
                                   3


     so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the
     allegation as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be
     recorded as the Inquiry Officer considers necessary. The charged police
     officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence
     in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish:

     Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for sufficient reasons to be
     recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall
     contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings
     and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from
     these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the
     punishment to be imposed on the charged police officer."

     13. This aspect has already considered in State of Uttranchal and others
     Vs. Kharak Singh, 2008(8) SCC 236 and Court has held, if in inquiry
     report, punishment is also recommended by Inquiry Officer, it is a grave
     illegality for the reason that appropriate punishment is the exclusive
     jurisdiction of punishing or disciplinary authority and Inquiry Officer's
     only job is to enquire, whether charge levelled against delinquent
     employee is proved or not."

6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, submits that in the show cause
notice though the respondents concurs with the findings but certain more
discussion has taken place while countering with the findings of the inquiry
officer, and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no independent
application of mind.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having
perused the record, I find that after the inquiry was conducted by the inquiry
officer, he held the petitioner guilty of charges vide finding part of report but
at the same time in the concluding part, he made a recommendation to the
effect that in view of Rule 14 (1) of the UP Police Officers of the
Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the petitioner be
placed minimum pay scale for a period of three years.

8. What is interesting to notice is that the inquiry officer not only
recommends the proposed punishment but also records that it will be
operative with the approval of the authority. It, therefore, transpires as if the
                                                                  WRIA No. 7245 of 2026
                                    4


inquiry officer was robed with the power of disciplinary authority in making
recommendation and passing orders.

9. The finding part as to the proposed punishment by the inquiry officer is
reproduced as under:

     िनष्कषर्ः


     िवभागीय कायर्वाही के मध्य संकिलत साष्य एं व प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध अिभलेखीय
     साष्यों के अवलोकन से पाया गया िक आरोपी उ०िन० औसान िसह (पीएनओ-
     882480147) ्षारा चौकी ्ऺभारी आवास िवकास थाना कासगंज के पद पर
     िनयुि्व के दौरान िशकायतकतर् ्शीमती ओमवती उफर् िरया पु्ऴी लालमन िनवासी
     अब्दुल्लागंज थाना उझानी जनपद बदायूँ के िशकायती ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ (आईजीआरएस
     सन्दभर्) पर सम्पूणर् तथ्यों के जानकारी के होने के बावजूद भी जानबूझकर ्ऴुिटपूणर्
     आख्या ्ऺेिषत की गयी तथा िशकायतकतर् ्शीमती ओमवती उफर् िरया उपरो्व के
     साथ आरोपी उ०िन० ्शी औसान िसह ्षारा देर राि्ऴ में वीिडयों कॉल तथा अ्शील
     चैट की गयी। इस सम्बन्ध में उ०िन० औसान िवरू्ध थाना कासगंज पर मु0अ0सं0-
     782/23 धारा-354घ/509 भादिव व 67 आई०टी० एक्ट पंजीकृत कराया
     िजसकी िववेचना / िववेचक िनरी० ्शी सुधीर कुमार राघव तत्कालीन ्ऺभारी िनरी्षक
     कासगंज ्षारा ्षहण कर सम्पािदत की गयी तथा बाद िववेचना उ०िन० औसान िसह
     के िवरू्ध जुमर् धारा-354घ/509 भादिव व 67 आई०टी० एक्ट बखूबी ्ऺमािणत
     पाते हुए आरोप प्ऴ संख्या-677/23 िदनांिकत-27.12.2023 को िकता कर
     िववेचना समाप्त की गयी है। आरोपी उ०िन० औसान िसह (पीएनओ-
     882480147) ्षारा चौकी ्ऺभारी आवास-िवकास के पद पर िनयुि्व के दौरान
     िशकायतकतर् ्शीमती ओमवती उफर् िरया ्षारा आईजीआरएस पर ्ऺेिषत िशकायती
     ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ पर समस्त तथ्यों की जानकारी होने के बावजूद भी ्ऴुिटपूणर् आख्या
     ्ऺेिषत िकये जाने तथा अपने पद का दुरूपयोग करते हुए देर राि्ऴ एं व िदन में कई-कई
     बार व्हाट्सएप पर वीिडयो कॉल/ऑिडयो तथा व्हाट्सएप पर उपरो्व विणत मैसेज
     ्ऺेिषत िकये गये तथा िशकायतकतर् के मोबाइल नम्बर पर ऑिडयो कॉल कर
     अ्शील वातार् तथा अपशब्दों का ्ऺयोग कर उ्तर ्ऺदेश सरकारी कमर्चारी आचरण
     िनयमावली 1956 का उल्लघन है। आरोपी उ०िन० औसान िसह का यह कृत्य
     उ०्ऺ० अधीनस्थ ्शेणी के पुिलस अिधकािरयों/कमर्चािरयों की (दण्ड एवं अपील)
     िनयमावली 1991 के िनयम 4(01) (क) के अन्तगर्त कदाचरण, घोर
     अनुशासनहीनता, पद का दुरूपयोग िकये जाने के िलए दोषी पाता हूँ। आरोपी उ०िन०
     औसान िसह को उ०्ऺ० अधीनस्थ ्शेणी के पुिलस अिधकािरयों की (दण्ड एवं
     अपील) िनयमावली 1991 के िनयम 4 (क) (3) के अन्तगर्त 03 वषर् के िलये
                                                                                                   WRIA No. 7245 of 2026
                                                                        5


                                            न्यूनतम वेतन पर ्ऺत्यावितत िकये जाने का दण्ड ्ऺस्तािवत िकया जाता है, जो
                                            पुिलस अधी्षक कासगंज के अनुमोदन के उपरांत ्ऺभावी होगा

                                    10. It is, thus, quite apparent that even if the a show cause notice was issued
                                    by the disciplinary authority but the manner in which the report was
                                    submitted cannot be approved of and so there left no room for discretion to
                                    be exercised by the disciplinary authority in view of the law as laid down by
                                    the Division Bench of this Court (supra).

                                    11. This petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed by quashing the only
                                    recommendation part of the inquiry officer's report dated.

                                    12. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 06.03.2026 is also
                                    hereby quashed. Part of the inquiry report dated 13.08.2025 to the extent it
                                    makes recommendation is also quashed. Consequences to follow.

                                    13. Matter is remitted to the stage of report of the inquiry officer.

                                    14. It will be open for the disciplinary authority now to issue a fresh show
                                    cause notice to the petitioner to invite objection /reply and thereafter
                                    disciplinary authority shall proceed afresh in the matter to pass order.

                                    15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, petition stands allowed.



                                                                                                   (Prakash Padia,J.)
                                    May 14, 2026
                                    Swati




Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad