Holding

Recording of oral evidence in support of charges against a government servant is mandatory under Rule 7(vii) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, when the inquiry proposes imposition of a major penalty, and failure to record such evidence renders the inquiry non-est in law.

Summary

The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, faced disciplinary proceedings in 2012 for major penalties. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a censure entry and stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. The appellant challenged this before the State Public Services Tribunal, which quashed the penalty and granted consequential benefits. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and upheld the penalty. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 7(vii) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, recording oral evidence is mandatory when a major penalty is proposed. Since no witness was examined during the inquiry, the proceedings were non-est in law. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the Tribunal's order was restored.

Issues considered

Whether recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory?
Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross violation of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and is non-est in law?

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999s. 7(3), s. 7(vii)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory? Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross violation of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Rules, 1999, and is non-est in law. Headnotes† Appeal against disciplinary penalty – Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Rule 7(3) – Appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, was subject to disciplinary proceedings in 2012

Subjects

Government ServantMajor PenaltyDisciplinary proceedingsRecording evidenceExamination of witness

Judgment

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1634 : 2024 INSC 873

Satyendra Singh
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 12509 of 2024)
18 November 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding
proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory?
Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant
were in gross violation of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and is
non-est in law.

Headnotes†
Appeal against disciplinary penalty – Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Rule 7(3) –
Appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, was
subject to disciplinary proceedings in 2012 – Disciplinary
Authority in 2014, awarded punishment of Censure Entry along
with stoppage of two grade increments – Appellant challenged
the order imposing penalty before the State Public Services
Tribunal – Tribunal quashed the penalty order and granted
consequential benefits – High Court set aside the Tribunal’s
order and upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority:
Held: Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999 clearly stipulates that in
instances where a charge is denied by a Government servant,
the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witness proposed in
the charge sheet and record their oral evidence in the presence of
the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity
to cross-examine such witness – Post recording evidence, the
Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the
charged Government servant desires in his written statement to

* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1635

Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

be produced in his defence – Thus, recording of oral evidence
in support of charges against Government servant is a mandate
under of Sub-rule (vii) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, when the
inquiry being conducted proposes imposition of a major penalty – It
has been duly established from the record that the Inquiry Officer
proceeded merely on the basis of a perusal of documents pursuant
to the irregular transactions and on the basis of the verification
report without recording the evidence of a single witness – Even in
an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the
witnesses for proving the charges – Further, the State was ad idem
to the submissions on behalf of the appellant that no witness was
examined during the course of the inquiry proceedings – Having
tested the facts of the case on the touchstone of the Rules of
1999 and law in cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala,
in the absence of any examination of the witnesses thereof,
the inquiry proceedings were non-est in the eyes of the law.
[Para 11, 12, 17]

Case Law Cited
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others [2008] 17
SCR 1476 : (2009) 2 SCC 570; Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat
and Another [2013] 5 SCR 200 : (2013) 4 SCC 301; State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [2010] 2 SCR 326 : (2010) 2 SCC
772 – relied on.

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999.

List of Keywords
Government Servant; Major Penalty; Disciplinary proceedings;
Recording evidence; Examination of witness.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12509 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SB No. 6850 of 2016
1636 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., V. Pattabhiram, Christopher Dsouza,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal arises from the judgment dated 30th July, 2018
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
allowing the Writ Petition preferred by the respondents and setting
aside the judgment dated 5th June, 2015 passed by the State Public
Services Tribunal, Lucknow,1 whereby, the Tribunal had allowed the
Claim Petition2 preferred by the appellant.
Brief facts:-
3. The appellant, while being posted as Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Tax, Khand-13, Ghaziabad faced disciplinary
proceedings in furtherance of a charge sheet dated 5th March, 2012.
The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted an Inquiry
Report dated 29th November, 2012. The Disciplinary Authority being
the Principal Secretary, Tax Registration Department, Lucknow, U.P.,
issued a Show Cause Notice accompanied with the Inquiry Report
to the appellant. The appellant submitted his reply/objections to the
said Show Cause Notice. The Disciplinary Authority, considered the
reply of the appellant and issued the Order dated 5th November,
2014, whereby it awarded the punishment of Censure Entry as well
as stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect to the
appellant.

1 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘Tribunal’
2 Claim Petition No. 1931 of 2014
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1637

Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

4. The appellant challenged the order imposing penalty by filing the
Claim Petition3 before the Tribunal which allowed the same vide
order dated 5th June, 2015; thereby, quashing the order dated 5th
November, 2014 and directed that the appellant shall be entitled
to all consequential benefits. While allowing the Claim Petition, the
Tribunal came to the following conclusions: -
“While going through the record available on the file
it becomes clear that the Inquiry Officer proved the
charges against the petitioner merely, on the basis of
conclusion of the verification report prepared under
Deputy Collector and the Additional Commissioner,
Grade-1, Commercial Tax, Agra Zone, Agra. The
delinquent officer was not involved in the inquiry. The
petitioner submitted detailed explanation to the show cause
notice but when we go through the punishment order and
the explanation submitted by the petitioner against the
show cause notice, we find that proper analysis and
deliberation was not done by the opp.(sic) parties to
assess the role of the petitioner in the episode.
The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the relevant
charges can be safely termed as irrational. No reasons
have been given for recording those findings. The
Inquiry Officer has recorded cryptic findings and
concluded that the charges are proved without
rationalizing those conclusions. Hence it is a fit case
where the Tribunal should interfere.
We may also add here that this is not a case of procedural
irregularity, and we do not propose to interfere with the order
of the disciplinary authority on the ground of procedural
irregularity.
….
On the basis of the discussion attempted in the
preceding para we are fully convinced that the Inquiry

3 Supra note 2.
1638 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Officer and the Disciplinary have recorded irrational
findings on relevant charges.”
(emphasis supplied)

5. The State/disciplinary authority assailed the order4 passed by the
Tribunal by filing Writ Petition5 which was allowed vide judgment
dated 30th July, 2018 and the order passed by the Tribunal was set
aside thereby reaffirming the order issued by the disciplinary authority
which had imposed penalty. The appellant herein has assailed the
judgment dated 30th July, 2018 passed by the High Court in exercise
of its writ jurisdiction by preferring this appeal by special leave.

Submission on behalf the appellant: -
6. Learned counsel representing the appellant urged that the inquiry
proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross dereliction
of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant(Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999.6 The disciplinary proceedings were initiated
and allegations constituting major penalty were proposed by Inquiry
Officer. Since the appellant had emphatically denied the charges, it
was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to have recorded evidence to
establish the charges attributed to the appellant. However, admittedly,
not a single witness was examined by the Inquiry Officer to bring
home the charges, and thus, the inquiry report is non est in the eyes
of law. He, therefore, urged that the Tribunal was perfectly justified
in quashing the inquiry proceedings and the order imposing penalty
vide order dated 5th June, 2015 and that the High Court fell in grave
error of law whilst allowing the writ petition and reversing the order
passed by the Tribunal. He, therefore, implored the Court to accept
the appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the High Court and
restore the order passed by the Tribunal.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State:-
7. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for the State
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

4 Dated 5th June, 2015.
5 Writ Petition No. 6850(S/B) of 2015
6 Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Rules of 1999’
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1639

Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

learned counsel for the appellant. He contended that the appellant
did not seriously challenge the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the
Inquiry Report. The reply submitted by the appellant was considered
by the Disciplinary Authority and after due application of mind,
the Disciplinary Authority passed a well-reasoned Order dated 5th
November, 2014 imposing the penalty afore-stated against the
appellant. He submitted that the High Court exercised the jurisdiction
conferred upon it by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India
by proper consideration of the material available on record and
hence, this Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment
rendered by the High Court.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have carefully gone through the impugned
judgments and the material available on record.

Discussion and Conclusion:-
9. There is no dispute amongst the parties that penalty which has been
imposed upon the appellant is a major penalty as defined in the
Rules of 1999. In Rule 37 of the Rules of 1999, under the head of
major penalty, the first Sub-Rule refers to withholding of increments
with cumulative effect.
10. Therefore, Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 which prescribes the procedure
for imposing major penalty would be applicable in the inquiry to be

7 3. Penalties
….
Major Penalties
(i) Withholding of increments with cumulative effect;
(ii) Reduction to a lower post or grade time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale;
(iii) Removal from the service which does not disqualify form future employment;
(iv) Dismissal from the service which disqualify from future employment.
Explanation- The following shall not amount to penalty within the meaning of this rule, namely:
(i) Withholding of increment of a Government Servant for failure to pass a departmental examination
or for failure to fulfil any other condition in accordance with the rules or orders governing the
service;
(ii) Stoppage at the efficiency bar in the time scale of pay on account of ones not being found fit to
cross the efficiency bar;
(iii) Reversion of a person appointed to probation to the service during or at the end of the period of
probation in accordance with the terms of appointment or the rules and orders governing such
probation.
(iv) Termination of the service of a person appointed on probation during or at the end of period
of probation in accordance with the term of the service or the rules and order governing such
probation.
1640 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

conducted against the appellant to bring home the charges imputed
to him.
11. Rule 7 (vii)8 of the Rules of 1999, clearly stipulates that where a
Government servant denies the charge, the Inquiry Officer shall
proceed to call the witness proposed in the charge sheet and record
their oral evidence in the presence of the charged Government servant
who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witness. After
recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and
record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant
desires in his written statement to be produced in his defence.
Hence, recording of oral evidence in support of charges against
Government servant is a mandate under of Sub-rule (vii) of Rule 7
of the Rules of 1999, when the inquiry being conducted proposes
imposition of a major penalty.
12. Learned counsel for the State was ad idem to the submissions of the
appellant’s counsel that no witness whatsoever was examined during
the course of the inquiry proceedings. On a minute appraisal of the
Inquiry Report, it is evident that other than referring to the documents
pursuant to the so-called irregular transactions constituting the basis
of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer failed to record the evidence of
even a single witness in order to establish the charges against the
appellant.
13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of
evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major
punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held
to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others9 and
Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another.10

8 7-Procedure for imposing major penalties- Before imposing any major penalty on a Government
Servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner:
…
(vii) Where the charged Government Servant denies the charge the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call
the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charge
Government Servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording
the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged
Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence.
9 (2009) 2 SCC 570
10 (2013) 4 SCC 301
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1641

Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi,11 this Court held that mere production
of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence
have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof
reads as under: -
“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is
a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer
performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges
levelled against the delinquent officer must be found
to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty
to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration
the materials brought on record by the parties. The
purported evidence collected during investigation
by the investigating officer against all the accused
by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to
prove the said documents. The management witnesses
merely tendered the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the
enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been
treated as evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic
evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the
enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the
appellant before the police. According to the appellant,
he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he
was tortured in the police station. The appellant being
an employee of the Bank, the said confession should
have been proved. Some evidence should have been
brought on record to show that he had indulged
in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there
was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect
evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the
enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty
as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis

11 Supra note 9.
1642 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

that the offence was committed in such a manner that
no evidence was left.
…
19. The judgment and decree passed against the
respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case [(2006) 4 SCC
713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the said
suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was
considered, the same was held to have been based on
no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned
situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the
disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This
Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was
arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the
law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in
the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can
be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some
evidence on record. …”
(emphasis supplied)

15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj
Kumar Sinha,12 wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte
inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence
presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted
evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The relevant
observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha13 are as follows: -
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority
is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is
not supposed to be a representative of the department/
disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to
examine the evidence presented by the Department,
even in the absence of the delinquent official to see
as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the present case

12 (2010) 2 SCC 772
13 Ibid.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1643

Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since
no oral evidence has been examined the documents
have not been proved, and could not have been taken
into consideration to conclude that the charges have
been proved against the respondents.
….
33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the
respondent has been denied access to documents
sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been
condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any
date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a
single witness has been examined in support of the
charges levelled against the respondent. The High
Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire
proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in
complete violation of the principles of natural justice
and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never
had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to
offer an explanation against the allegations made in the
charge-sheet.”
(emphasis supplied)

16. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala,14 this Court held that evidence
recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry
as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to
cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given.
Relevant extract thereof reads as under: -
“42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu
Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992] ,
held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry
in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for
the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie,
to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been

14 Supra note 10.
1644 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

committed and on the basis of the findings recorded
in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be
passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether
a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent
is required to be held.
43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of
India [AIR 1964 SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this
Court while taking a similar view held that preliminary
inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The
preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry
may be held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of
the Government though usually for the sake of fairness, an
explanation may be sought from the government servant
even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right
to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction
of the Government as to whether a regular inquiry must
be held. The Court further held as under : (AIR p. 1862,
para 12)
“12. … There must therefore be no confusion
between the two enquiries and it is only when
the government proceeds to hold a departmental
enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the
government servant one of the three major
punishments indicated in Article 311 that the
government servant is entitled to the protection
of that article [, nor prior to that].”
44. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of
Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 299 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 152 :
AIR 1997 SC 2148] this Court dealt with the issue and
held as under:
“… a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do
with the enquiry conducted after issue of
charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only
to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should
be initiated against the delinquent. Once
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1645

Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the
preliminary enquiry loses its importance and,
whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in
accordance with law or by observing principles
of natural justice of (sic) nor, remains of no
consequence.”
45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence
recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in
regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated
with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons
examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such
evidence would be violative of the principles of natural
justice.
(emphasis supplied)

17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the
evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested
the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of
1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop
Singh Negi 15 and Nirmala J. Jhala,16 we are of the firm view that
the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining
to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and
non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was
recorded by the department in support of the charges.
18. As a consequence, thereof, the High Court fell into grave error of
law while interfering in the well-reasoned judgment rendered by
the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the order imposing
penalty upon the appellant.
19. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 30th July, 2018 is hereby
quashed and set aside and the order dated 5th June, 2015 rendered by
the Public Service Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh is restored. The appellant
is entitled to all consequential benefits.

15 Supra note 9.
16 Supra note 10.
1646 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

20. The monetary benefit flowing from this order shall be paid to the
appellant within a period of two months from today, failing which,
the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.
21. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal Allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathews, Sr. Adv.)