In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed the disciplinary punishment imposed on a Uttar Pradesh government officer, holding that an authority cannot rely on an external opinion to punish an employee without following due process.
The case, Writ – A No. 2211 of 2025, Dineshwar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others, was decided by Justice Alok Mathur. The court ruled that the disciplinary authority violated Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, by considering an opinion that was neither part of the inquiry proceedings nor shared with the petitioner. The judgment emphasized that such actions violate principles of natural justice and render the punishment illegal.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Dineshwar Mishra, was serving as Deputy Cane Commissioner, Saharanpur, when allegations were leveled against him for not properly enforcing “tagging orders” issued by the District Magistrate. These orders required that 85% of the revenue collected from sugar and molasses sales be used for farmer payments. The government accused Mr. Mishra of negligence in supervising this process, which led to delays in payments to sugarcane farmers.
A departmental inquiry was initiated, and a charge sheet was issued on September 13, 2023, listing four charges of a similar nature. Mr. Mishra denied the allegations, and after a full inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on January 9, 2023, exonerating him of all charges. The report found that the actual lapse was on the part of another official—the District Cane Officer, Shamli—not Mr. Mishra.
Despite this, on September 23, 2024, the Principal Secretary, Sugar Cane Department, imposed a penalty of “stoppage of two increments permanently” and issued a censure entry against Mr. Mishra. This meant a financial setback and an official reprimand, impacting his career. Aggrieved, Mr. Mishra challenged this decision in the High Court.
Key Legal Issues
The High Court examined two major legal violations in the case:
- Violation of Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
Under Rule 9, if a disciplinary authority disagrees with an inquiry report that exonerates an employee, it must issue a fresh show-cause notice stating the reasons for disagreement and give the employee a chance to respond before deciding on punishment.
However, in this case, after the Inquiry Officer exonerated Mr. Mishra, the disciplinary authority sought an external opinion from the Cane Commissioner, which blamed Mr. Mishra despite the inquiry report clearing him. This new opinion was never given to Mr. Mishra, and he was not allowed to respond to it before punishment was imposed.
The court observed that “seeking of such an opinion is alien to the provisions of Rule 9” and held that a disciplinary authority cannot rely on any external report or opinion that was not part of the original inquiry proceedings. - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
A fundamental rule of fairness is that a person must be given a chance to respond to any evidence used against them. In this case, the disciplinary authority never informed Mr. Mishra about the opinion of the Cane Commissioner, nor was he allowed to challenge it before being punished.
The court ruled that this violated the principles of natural justice, stating: “Not affording [the Cane Commissioner’s] opinion to the petitioner… is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice.”
High Court’s Decision
After reviewing the case, the High Court held that the disciplinary authority had acted beyond its powers and in an unfair manner. The court stated that Rule 9 of the 1999 Rules had been “grossly violated” and that the entire process was illegal and arbitrary.
Consequently, the court quashed the punishment order dated September 23, 2024, meaning the penalty of withholding increments and censure was cancelled.
However, instead of completely closing the case, the court sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration. The judge directed that the case must be re-evaluated from the stage after the Inquiry Officer’s report, and if the department still wished to proceed against Mr. Mishra, it must follow proper legal procedures.
The court strictly instructed that the disciplinary authority must not be influenced by the previously quashed punishment order and must consider the case with an open mind. Further, the judge directed that the case should be concluded “expeditiously, preferably within six weeks” of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
Important Observations from the Judgment
The High Court made several key observations that emphasize fair procedure in disciplinary actions:
- On Rule 9 Violations: “Seeking of such an opinion is alien to the provisions of Rule 9… [and] at this stage [the disciplinary authority] cannot… take the opinion from a third person and [use it to] impose punishment.”
- On Natural Justice Violations: “Not affording [the Cane Commissioner’s] opinion to the petitioner… is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice.”
- On the Illegality of the Action: “Rule 9… has been grossly violated… and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that such exercise… is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.”
