- (1.) HEARD Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
(2.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is of two fold namely - (i) the report of the inquiry officer making recommendation for punishment is in breach of specific bar of not recommending punishment in inquiry report under Rule 8 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal ) Rule 1999 and as such the entire disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated and (ii) the order of the appellate authority is without any reason and has been passed without considering the grounds mentioned in the appeal and the arguments raised. This being so, the appellate authority has passed the order without following the mandate of Rule 12 of the aforesaid rules which is liable to be set aside.
(3.) ELABORATING his submission he submits that if the statute provides for a thing to be done in particular manner it can be done in that manner alone. He submits that due to non observance of the mandatory provision of Rule 8, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He relied upon the following judgments. (i) Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. v. Govind Joti Chavare and others, 1975 AIR(SC) 915 (ii) Ram Kishun v. State Election Commission and others, 2003 2 UPLBEC 1340 (iii) Dr. Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2012 1 UPLBEC 166 (iv) Harendra Pandy v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 2 UPLBEC 1704 Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that although there is a recommendation in the nature of proposal for punishment by the inquiry officer in its inquiry report submitted to the disciplinary authority, yet the disciplinary authority has considered the entire evidences on record and passed the order of punishment in accordance with law. He submits that in view of these facts it cannot be said that the entire proceedings gets vitiated merely for the reason that the inquiry officer made recommendation for punishment in breach of Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules. He submits that even if recommendation has been made by the inquiry officer in the inquiry report, the disciplinary proceedings shall not get vitiated under any of the provisions of the rules. Replying the second arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submits that the appellate authority has noted the facts in detail and thereafter, shown agreement with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is without reasons and has been passed in violation of Rule 12 of the Rules.;