STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus SAROJ KUMAR SINHA

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus SAROJ KUMAR SINHA

The departmental enquiry was vitiated as the authorities failed to comply with the statutory requirement to supply relevant documents relied upon in the charge-sheet to the delinquent officer, despite repeated requests, and failed to fix dates for his appearance. These procedural lapses are in flagrant violation of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: State of U.P. & Ors.; Respondent: Saroj Kumar Sinha
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Departmental Enquiry, Principles of Natural Justice, Removal From Service, Supply of Documents, U.p. Government Servant (discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, Article 311(2) of the Constitution
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Departmental Enquiry Principles of Natural Justice Removal From Service Supply of Documents U.p. Government Servant (discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U.P. & Ors.

Appellant

Saroj Kumar Sinha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-supply of relevant documents to the delinquent officer vitiates the departmental enquiry proceedings under Rule 7(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
  2. 2 Whether failure to fix a date for appearance of the delinquent officer for answering the charges vitiates the enquiry under Rule 7(x).
  3. 3 Whether denial of relevant documents and procedural lapses violated the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The departmental enquiry was vitiated as the authorities failed to comply with the statutory requirement to supply relevant documents relied upon in the charge-sheet to the delinquent officer, despite repeated requests, and failed to fix dates for his appearance. These procedural lapses are in flagrant violation of the rules and principles of natural justice, as well as Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings and resulting removal order are invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The order of removal passed against the respondent is set aside.
  • Respondent is to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.