Documentary Evidence Can't Be Basis Of Guilt In Departmental Proceedings Unless Proved Through Oral Evidence: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings conducted under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 stand vitiated where no oral inquiry is conducted and no oral evidence is led by the department to prove the documents relied upon in support of the charge-sheet. It held that a finding of guilt against a charged employee cannot rest...
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings conducted under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 stand vitiated where no oral inquiry is conducted and no oral evidence is led by the department to prove the documents relied upon in support of the charge-sheet.
It held that a finding of guilt against a charged employee cannot rest on documents which have not been proved through evidence.
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held,
“….where no oral evidence is led by the department to prove the documents relied upon in support of the charge-sheet, such documentary evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer for recording a finding of guilt against the charged employee.”
Petitioner, then posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged irregularities in the allotment of a housing site in Village Bhasanda, Tehsil Mohanlalganj. The proceedings were initiated in February 2019 under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, with the Commissioner, Lucknow Division appointed as the Inquiry Officer. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner in May 2019 and the inquiry report submitted in November 2020 found one of the two charges against him proved. The petitioner submitted his representation against the inquiry report.
Thereafter, the matter remained pending with the State Government, which sought the concurrence of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission only in June 2025. By order dated 10.09.2025, the punishment of permanent withholding of one annual increment along with censure was imposed on the petitioner. His representation against the punishment order was rejected on 09.12.2025. He challenged both orders before the High Court.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no regular inquiry was conducted, no date, time or place for holding the inquiry was ever fixed, and the entire proceedings were conducted dehors the Rules, 1999. It was further submitted that the Board of Revenue, whose opinion had been sought by the State Government, found that the petitioner had exercised due vigilance, had initiated proceedings for cancellation of the allotments as soon as the irregularities came to his knowledge, and had acted without any mala fide intention. The Board had found his explanation satisfactory.
Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the petitioner never requested an oral hearing during the inquiry and was estopped from contending that the proceedings stood vitiated on that ground. It was contended that the charge against the petitioner was proved as he had, despite being the supervisory authority, approved the recommendations of subordinate revenue officials as they were, without any independent scrutiny, contrary to the Government Order dated 19.05.1972.
The Court noted that it was not disputed that no oral inquiry was conducted and that the findings of the Inquiry Officer rested solely on documents, without examination of any witness or opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine.
Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha and Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it held that even in an ex parte inquiry, the department must lead evidence in support of the charges and the Inquiry Officer must record the statements of witnesses to establish the allegations.
The Court further held that the punishment order was non-speaking and cryptic, as the disciplinary authority had merely reproduced the charge-sheet, the inquiry report and the petitioner's reply without recording any finding on his specific defence.
“A disciplinary authority exercising quasi-judicial powers is under a legal obligation to consider the defence put forth by the delinquent employee and to assign reasons while accepting or rejecting the same. The recording of reasons is an essential facet of fair decision-making and constitutes a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power.”
It held that the complete omission to consider the opinion of the Board of Revenue, which was a relevant material bearing directly on the culpability of the petitioner, rendered the decision-making process arbitrary and vitiated the punishment order.
On the delay of nearly four years between the petitioner's representation against the inquiry report and the final punishment order, the Court observed
“Such prolonged delay defeats the very object of disciplinary proceedings and causes serious prejudice to a government servant, who remains under a cloud of uncertainty for an indefinite period.”
The Court also noted that the charge related only to lack of adequate scrutiny while approving recommendations of subordinate officials, with no finding of personal benefit, mala fide intention, corruption, dishonesty or misappropriation against the petitioner. In such circumstances, it held, “strict adherence to the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice assumes even greater significance. Once the mandatory procedure has not been followed, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be sustained.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders and issued a mandamus directing the respondents to restore all consequential service benefits, including restoration of the withheld annual increment, re-fixation of pay and release of monetary benefits, as if the impugned orders had never been passed.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Appointment And Personnel Deptt. Lko And 2 Others