-
by sayum
21 December 2025 10:40 AM
“Even If Procedure Is Flawed, You Must Show Prejudice”: - Allahabad High Court (Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery) dismissed a writ petition filed by Smt. Krishna Kant Gupta, a government Assistant Teacher, who challenged her dismissal from service on the ground of procedural irregularities in the disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner had remained absent from duty for an astonishing 1220 days over five years (2004–2009) without sanctioned leave or medical documentation. The Court held that while procedural lapses may have occurred, the petitioner failed the “test of prejudice”, and thus her dismissal stood justified under Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
“This is Not a Case of Denial of Hearing, But of Absolute Silence”: Court Rejects Procedural Challenge Without Substantive Defence
The petitioner argued that she was denied a fair opportunity as the inquiry report was not provided, no oral evidence was recorded, and cross-examination was not allowed. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325), she sought the quashing of her dismissal for lack of compliance with service jurisprudence.
However, the Court noted that she never denied the allegations, did not file any reply to the charge-sheet, and remained absent even during inquiry proceedings despite notice being published in a newspaper. Significantly, she also failed to annex any leave application, sanction order, or medical certificate in the writ petition itself.
The Court observed: “In the writ petition, the petitioner has not denied her absence of 1220 days even vaguely... No document was placed on record which could support her defence or contradict the allegations.”
“Merely Pointing Out a Flawed Procedure Does Not Save a Defence That Was Never Made”: Court Applies ‘Test of Prejudice’
Relying heavily on the doctrine laid down in Union of India v. Dilip Paul, (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1423), and State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364, the Court clarified that not every procedural irregularity invalidates a disciplinary action—the crux lies in whether the delinquent employee suffered actual prejudice in defending themselves.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench reiterated: “Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed… the complaint should be examined on the touchstone of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively.”
Further, the Court stated that even if the inquiry was restarted, “it would have no effect since petitioner has no explanation to her long absence of 1220 days.”
“Absence of Over Three Years in a Five-Year Span Is a Grave Breach of Public Duty”: Dismissal Not Disproportionate
The charge-sheet issued on October 27, 2010, detailed the six distinct periods of absence totaling 1220 days. These absences, spread between 2004 and 2009, remained entirely unexplained.
The Court remarked: “It is not a case where oral evidence was required. The only requirement was that petitioner had to submit her explanation… There is no material that petitioner has denied the allegation. The writ petition is also silent on any explanation to such long absence.”
Thus, finding no cause to interfere, the Court ruled that the punishment of dismissal was neither disproportionate nor unjustified, considering the extreme and unexplained dereliction of duty.
This judgment affirms the principle that in service law, a flawed procedure alone is not enough to overturn disciplinary action unless prejudice is proved. The Allahabad High Court’s decision stands as a stern reminder that discipline in public service demands accountability, and mere procedural technicalities cannot shield gross misconduct like unauthorised absence for over three years.
Date of Decision: 14 May 2025
