Disciplinary Action | Punishment Order Not Invalid For Mere Non-Mention Of Specifics Of Show Cause Notice: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that unless there is any clear illegality, punishment order cannot be held to be invalid merely because it does not include all specifics of the show cause notice.The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,“This Court is of the opinion that a punishment order cannot be held invalid merely on the ground that it does not specifically mention the details of...
The Allahabad High Court has held that unless there is any clear illegality, punishment order cannot be held to be invalid merely because it does not include all specifics of the show cause notice.
The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,
“This Court is of the opinion that a punishment order cannot be held invalid merely on the ground that it does not specifically mention the details of the show cause notice or the written reply submitted by the petitioner, if the substance of both is duly considered and discussed in the order. Unless there is a manifest procedural irregularity or a clear illegality apparent on the face of the record, such minor omissions would not render the order unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
Counsel for petitioner pleaded that in 2007, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher. In 2013, petitioner was transferred from the post of Head Teacher, Junior Primary School, Block- Jaithra, District- Etah to his position as Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School, Khangarpur, Block- Marhera, District- Etah.
On 27.08.2024, an inspection of the institution was carried out where he was found to be absent. Thereafter, on 30.08.2024, he was suspended pending inquiry. Petitioner filed a writ petition against the suspension order. Though the suspension order was not interfered with, the Court directed that inquiry be completed in 3 months.
Meanwhile charge sheet dated 04.11.2024 was served upon the petitioner on 25.11.2024 before the Court and reply to the same was submitted on 26.11.2024 before the inquiry officer. On 19.11.2024, District Basic Education Officer directed Block Education Officer/Inquiry Officer to complete inquiry within 15 days. The Inquiry Officer issued a later to petitioner asking him to submit reply within 2 days, when petitioner asked for extension he was threatened and the request was denied.
An ex-parte inquiry report dated 28.12.2024 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer and was not provided to the petitioner. Upon being called, petitioner appeared personally before District Basic Education Officer and requested for a copy of the inquiry report which was not provided to him. When District Basic Education Officer asked the IO to conduct inquiry on an objection raised by the petitioner, he stated that the same had already been dealt with.
Subsequently, an order was passed where one increment of the petitioner has been stopped and he has been transferred from Upper Primary School, Kangarpur, Etah to Composite Institution, Nawar, in District Etah. This order was challenged before the High Court.
The Court relied on various Supreme Court judgments where it had been held that disciplinary action cannot be held to be vitiated merely because the show cause notice is not reproduced in the order of punishment when there is application of mind to the facts of the case. It also relied on the settled law that disciplinary proceedings cannot be held to vitiated because of minor procedural lapses.
“It is imperative to underscore that the solemn purpose of any order is not the pedantic perfection of form, but the faithful administration of justice by adhering to principles of natural justice and application of mind. The adjudicatory process is guided by the substance of justice rather than the superficialities of procedure.”
The Court held that the order must address the core legal and factual controversies and applies law to render an equitable solution. Since the order impugned was comprehensive and dealt with all issues and applied law with due care and diligence, the same was not quashed by the Court.
The Court held that the petitioner had not pleaded that there was miscarriage of justice by the omissions made by the respondent in the punishment order.
“Courts are not expected to exhibit technical exactitude in form to the exclusion of justice. The doctrine of substantial compliance applies with full vigour in such circumstances. As long as any order fulfils its constitutional and legal mandate namely, the fair discussion of facts with application of mind incidental lacunae in presentation or form cannot be permitted to defeat the ends of justice. It would be appropriate to mention that “justice is not a slave to format, but a servant of truth.””
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Dharvendra Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 290 [WRIT - A No. - 9632 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 290
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi, Rohit Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, Anoop Trivedi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Hare Ram