TRIHUTI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) It has been repeatedly emphasized by the Supreme Court and this Court, not in one judgment but successive authorities, that the law for a salutary principle is that in departmental inquiries, involving the imposition of a major penalty, it is essential for the establishment to examine witnesses and prove the charge, even if the delinquent does not appear or defend himself. If he does, he has the right to cross-examine witnesses for the establishment. The delinquent may produce evidence in his defence or not, but that does not absolve the establishment of their liability to produce not only documentary evidence, but witnesses to establish by the standard of preponderant probability the charge(s) against the delinquent, facing disciplinary proceedings. This by far is the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010 (2) SCC 772 = 2010 (124) FLR 857, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others 2009 (2) SCC 570=2009 (120) FLR 610 and State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh 2008 (8) SCC 236=2008 (118) FLR 1112 and the Bench decisions of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P. 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB). This position of the law has been reiterated as recently as in Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325=2025 (184) FLR 388 (SC).

(3.) Dr. Trihuti Kumar was an Assistant Director (Fisheries) in the employ of the State Government. He was suspended pending inquiry on 11/10/2006 and disciplinary proceedings instituted against him. The order of suspension was revoked on 11/12/2006, but the disciplinary proceedings continued. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 25/10/2007, the charge-sheet being a document dtd. 18/10/2007. The petitioner submitted his reply on 7/4/2008. The petitioner was hardly given any opportunity to defend himself and an inquiry report dtd. 21/10/2008 was submitted. On the basis of the inquiry report, on 12/12/2024, the following punishment was awarded to the petitioner by the State Government, to wit, (i) withholding of integrity, (ii) reversion to the basic grade of the post of Assistant Director (Fisheries), and (iii) recovery of a sum of Rs.23,145.00.