Back
2017 Supreme(All) 1529
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.N. Shukla, Sheo Kumar Singh-I, JJ.
Suresh Ram - Appellant
Versus
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. - Respondent
Service Bench No. 1075 of 2014
Decided On : 10-05-2017
For the Appellant : L.P. Misra and S.K. Upadhyay.
For the Respondent: Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya and C.S.C.
The judgment establishes the importance of adherence to the regulations governing the appointment, inquiry, and punishment of employees, and the authority of the competent authority to impose punishment.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Employment - Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Services of Engineers Regulations, 1970 - Regulation 6 of 1975 - The judgment discusses the petitioner's challenge to an order punishing him for misconduct related to a forged purchase order causing financial loss to the Corporation. The court considered the authority of the appointing authority and the competent authority to initiate inquiry and pass the punishment order. It also examined the delegation of power to impose punishment and the role of the Managing Director as the competent authority. The court found that the inquiry and punishment were conducted by competent authorities, and thus dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of U.P. Power Corporation Limited, challenged an order punishing him for misconduct related to a forged purchase order causing financial loss to the Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry and punishment were conducted by competent authorities, and thus dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues raised included the competence of the authority initiating the departmental inquiry and passing the punishment order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointing authority and the competent authority to impose punishment were in line with the regulations, and the Managing Director was competent to pass the punishment order.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.
Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.
1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, learned counsel for respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.02.2014 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) issued by the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of misconduct and was punished by way of censure entry and deduction of amount equal to three increments. It has further been prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 17.03.2006 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.03.2006 and to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Director (Distribution), U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow.
3. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer at Obra on 31.05.1982 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 01.06.1991. In due course of time the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and again as Deputy General Manager (Distribution), U.P. Power Corporation Limited at Electricity Distribution Circle, Hardoi. While working on the post of Deputy General Manager at Electricity Distribution Circle, Hardoi, from 2001 to July 2002, a forged purchase order amounting to Rs. 6,34,905/- was issued in favour of M/s. Naman Traders, Sitapur. After scrutiny of papers and inquiry, it was found that the aforesaid purchase order was a forged order causing heavy pecuniary loss to the Corporation and as such a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The matter was directed to be inquired by an Enquiry Committee constituted under Clause 6 of the U.P. State Electricity Board (Officers & Servants) (Condition of Service) Regulation, 1975 and copy of the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. After considering the inquiry report, it was found by the department that loss caused to the Exchequer or to the Department was not considered by the Committee, thus, the matter was again referred to the Enquiry Committee II after approval of the competent authority and the Enquiry Committee, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and recording the statement of the relevant witnesses, submitted the report in which the petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duties and committed the act in connivance of the Proprietor of M/s. Naman Traders causing huge financial loss to the Corporation. By the impugned order, the petitioner was punished with censure entry and deduction of an amount equal to three increments. Due to the report of the Committee and the punishment order, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the higher post, thus, the present writ petition.
4. While filing the counter affidavit the respondents have submitted that while working as Deputy General Manager in District Hardoi the petitioner forwarded the forged purchase order for payment amounting to Rs. 6,34,905/- in the name of M/s. Naman Traders, Sitapur, and it was sent to Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division II, Hardoi, for payment and subsequently it was paid causing heavy pecuniary loss to the Corporation. It has further been submitted that the order to initiate inquiry was passed by a competent authority and the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and after that the competent authority passed the order impugned by awarding the punishment as mentioned above.
5. The petitioner has raised the following legal points: -
i. The person/authority initiating the department inquiry was not competent to pass the order to initiate the departmental inquiry.
ii. The person/authori
