YOGENDRA BHADAURIYA Vs. STATE OF U. P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.I.M.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State as also Mr. R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P. Public Service Commission.

(2.) The petitioner, in the petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dtd. 9/9/2024 whereby the respondent No.1 has imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments for two years along with censure entry against the petitioner. A further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of impugned order dtd. 9/9/2024 with another direction to the respondents to open sealed cover of petitioner's promotion to the post of Geologist and to implement the recommendation of the promotion committee ignoring the impugned order, Annexure-1 has also been sought.

(3.) The petitioner's counsel has assailed the impugned order dtd. 9/9/2024 on two grounds. Firstly, the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is dehors the provisions of Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short, 1999 Rules), and secondly, while passing the punishment order, office report was summoned and on the basis of office report, the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted that there is no provision in the 1999 Rules for summoning office report. The punishment order has to be passed on the basis of the enquiry conducted in pursuant to the charge sheet as well as the reply submitted to the show cause notice by the delinquent government servant and no other extraneous material is permitted. It is further submitted that the oral evidence proposed to be examined during the course of enquiry as mentioned in the charge sheet has not been recorded in this case and as such, the enquiry is vitiated.