Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri R.C. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. Sri Ram Prasad Jaiswal-petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 21st June, 2008 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow, whereby 5% of the pension has been deducted as punishment for committing certain financial irregularities while working as Divisional Accountant. Later on, through amendment, petitioner has also assailed the order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid punishment.

3. The main contention of the petitioner’s Counsel is that the disciplinary proceedings were concluded immediately after submission of reply to the show-cause notice dated 28th December, 2007 without fixing any date, time and place of inquiry by the Inquiry Committee and straight away punishment order has been inflicted upon the petitioner by the Competent Authority. Neither any opportunity to examine the witnesses was afforded to the petitioner nor the department had examined any witness to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Chairman & Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, who rejected the appeal without assigning any reason with a cryptic order. It has been vehemently argued that as the inquiry proceedings were conducted in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice, it vitiates all further actions including the order of punishment. As regard the appellate order, it has been urged that same is also not sustainable as neither pleas raised by the petitioner have been dealt with in any manner nor the appellate authority has applied its independent mind upon the materials brought on record.

5. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Corporation has submitted that as per inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner has been given proper opportunity of personal hearing and statement of the petitioner was also recorded. It has further been submitted that the department had constituted the Inquiry Committee, which is the body of experts for conducting the regular disciplinary proceedings against the erring officer/officials of the department.

6. The crucial question that remains to be adjudicated is whether principles of natural justice have been violated; and if so, to what extent any what prejudice has been caused.

7. It may be noted at this juncture that in some cases, it has been observed that where grant of opportunity in terms of principles of natural justice do not improve the situation, ‘useless formality theory” can be pressed into service. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. The expressions ‘natural justice” and ‘legal justice” do not present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law.

8. The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized for observance of the principles of natural justice. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719, the Supreme Court propounded in clear words that it is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer the charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given