DEVI PRASAD YADAV vs Union Of India on 7 October 2026

O R D E R

PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Through this Original Application, applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): “(I) to set aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2015, passed by the opposite party no. 1, rejecting the appeal and against the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by opposite party no. 3 contained in as Annexure Nos. A-1 & A-2 respectively, to this original application.

(II) to issue direction to the opposite parties to give all service benefits including promotion from the date of promotion of the juniors with all consequential benefits and including deference of salary and allowances with due interest and the benefits of time scale as per Assured Career Progression Scheme from due dates.

(III) And to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit just and proper under these circumstances.

(IV) Cost of the present case as the applicant has unnecessarily been dragged into litigation.”

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Appellate Authority has not considered the points raised by the applicant in his appeal against the disciplinary authority order. The impugned appellate order is non-speaking one, hence, deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned punishment order passed by Disciplinary Authority (Annexure No. A-1) is liable to be set aside being in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman LIC of India & Ors. Vs. A Masilamani reported in AIRONLINE 2012 SC 426 and judgment passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench in the matter Lalit Kumar Jain vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Other reported in 2024 (42) LCD 959.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that impugned order is legally justifiable. The points raised by applicant have been duly considered in the impugned appellate order. O.A. deserves to be dismissed.

5. In the matter of Chairman LIC of India & Ors. Vs. A Masilamani reported in AIRONLINE 2012 SC 426, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the word ‘consider’ is of great significance. Hence, there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term ‘consider’ postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman LIC of India & Ors. Vs. A Masilamani (supra) is quoted herein below: “11. The word “consider”, is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”.

Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that, there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide: Director, Marketing, Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147; and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1771).”

6. In the matter Lalit Kumar Jain vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Other reported in 2024 (42) LCD 959, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench while dismissing the writ referred the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Mehrotra as well as Oryx Fisheries Private Limited wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the when a representation / reply has been submitted with regard to charges levelled against employee, disciplinary authority is required to to consider the grounds which have been taken by the delinquent employee in his reply prior to passing of punishment order. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench in the matter Lalit Kumar Jain vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Other reported in 2024 (42) LCD 959 is quoted herein below:

“6. Perusal of the judgments passed in the case of Raj Kumar Mehrotra (supra) as well as Oryx Fisheries Private Limited (supra) would indicate that the Apex Court has categorically held that when a representation/reply has been submitted against the inquiry report then the disciplinary authority is required to consider the grounds which have been taken by the delinquent employee in his reply prior to passing of the order.

7. When the facts of the instant case are seen in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments it clearly emerges that though the disciplinary authority has referred to the representation dated 30.12.2022 which has been submitted by the petitioner against the inquiry report yet the same has been found to be devoid of merit without indicating the reasons thereof.

8. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion more particularly when no reasons have been accorded by the disciplinary authority while finding the representation submitted by the petitioner devoid of merit, the order impugned dated 27.03.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside.”

7. In the light of the aforecited law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High Court Allahabad at Lucknow Bench, the case of the applicant is being analyzed and evaluated.

8. In the appellate order, the following observations have been made by the Appellate Authority:- “Sub: Appeal preferred by Shri D.P. Yadav, Chief Manager (TS), CIPET Lucknow against the final order passed by Disciplinary Authority- regarding. With reference to the above, I am directed to convey that the Appellate Authority “after considering all the facts of the case, has decided not to interfere in the matter and has upheld the Final Order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.” We are attaching herein the letter F.No. 45012/6/2016-PC- IV_Org.Estt, dt. 03.09.2025 received in this regard from the Administrative Ministry for your kind information.”

9. From the perusal of the aforesaid extract, it is manifest that appeal has been rejected without considering the points raised by the applicant in his defence.

10. The appeal has been filed as Annexure No. 23 (pages from 242 to 263 of the paper-book).

11. Appellate Authority should have considered the points raised by the applicant. The impugned appellate order (Annexure No. 2) is non-speaking one, thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of A. Masilamani (supra), the impugned appellate order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

12. In view of the above, the impugned Appellate Order dated 12.09.2015 (Annexure No. 2) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after considering the points raised in the appeal by the applicant against Disciplinary authority order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that Tribunal has not touched upon the merits of the case as well as final order passed by disciplinary authority on 01.04.2013. No order as costs. Associated MAs also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Kumar)

(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A)

Member (J)

JNS Jay Narayan Singh Digitally signed by Jay Narayan Singh Date: 2026.10.09 14:50:50 +05'30'