Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Jayant Banerji, JJ.
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Anil Kumar Sharma and Another – Respondents
Special Appeal Defective No. 646 of 2021
Decided On : 23-10-2021
Companies Act, 1956 - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 - Section 13, (5) - Electricity Supply Act, 1948 - Section 5 - Reforms Act - Section 23, (7), (4) - Supply Act 1948 - Section 79 (c) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 – Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 351-A, 919-A and 309 - Retired from Post - Retiral Benefits – Gratuity - Leave Encashment - Whether departmental proceedings against petitioner could be instituted in view of first proviso to Article 351-A of CSR - Whether to grant sanction or not, for institution of departmental proceedings - Whether departmental proceedings were in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before institution of proceedings.
Finding of the Court : Appellant in an attempt to show sanction of departmental proceeding, does not ex-facie disclose that Managing Director had applied its mind to material on record in light of first proviso to Article 351-A of CSR and had sanctioned departmental proceedings - Sanction as envisaged in Article 351-A of CSR dons Managing Director of UPPCL with mantel of Governor to accord sanction to such departmental proceedings after noticing that ingredients for institution of such departmental proceedings exist - Here Managing Director has neither accepted proposal for departmental enquiry nor has approved or sanctioned departmental enquiry - He had just put his signature on page, which by itself cannot be taken as grant of sanction in view of fact situation of instant case - Having considered case in its entirety and after perusal of record, in Court opinion on basis of discussion above, alleged - sanction for departmental proceedings granted by Managing Director of UPPCL under Article 351-A of CSR is no sanction in eyes of law and is, therefore, declared invalid - However, this cannot preclude appellant-respondents from instituting departmental proceedings after obtaining a valid sanction if so permissible in law - But till a valid sanction is granted for departmental proceedings, directions issued by learned Judge for payments of retiral dues, etc. calls for no interference.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Jayant Banerji, J.
1. The application seeking exemption for filing the certified copy of the order is allowed.
2. The appellant-respondents have filed this intra court appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Judge dated 23.7.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 6544 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others) by means of which the writ petition has been allowed holding that denial of pension to the petitioner as well as continuation of departmental proceedings against him by taking recourse to Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, CSR is arbitrary.
Background of the case:
3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed seeking directions to the respondents to pay the retiral benefits like Gratuity, G.P.F., Leave Encashment etc. and arrears of pension alongwith interest and to pay the regular pension to the petitioner as and when it is due. Further relief was sought for granting provisional pension.
4. The case of the respondent-petitioner in the writ petition was that he was initially appointed on 4.6.1974 on a permanent regular post of Patrolman and was lastly promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the year 2014. He retired on 31.12.2018 from the post of Junior Engineer from the office of the Superintendent Engineer, Vidyut Vitaran Mandal, Amroha, after attaining the age of superannuation. He did not receive any retiral benefits/dues like GPF, gratuity, leave encashment, pension or even provisional pension. It was submitted that while in service he was suspended by means of the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Managing Director of the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, PVVNL on a solitary complaint but, by an order dated 28.12.2018, he was reinstated in service and on 31.12.2018, he retired. Prior to his suspension, a two member committee was constituted for inquiring into the matter, which found no evidence against him. It was stated that post retirement, two chargesheets were served on the petitioner on 7.11.2019 against which the petitioner submitted his reply/explanation on 21.12.2019. On 22.5.2020, the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the inquiry officer, who submitted his report to the higher authority, who was not satisfied with the inquiry report and a re-inquiry was ordered. The petitioner was again asked to submit his statement along with evidence and his statement was again recorded on 23.9.2020. It was stated that the proceedings were pending before the Authorities and he was not being paid his retiral dues despite repeated representations.
5. From perusal of the order-sheet of the writ petition, it appears that on the request of the parties, on 15.7.2021, the learned Judge directed the case to be listed on the next day, that is, 16.7.2021. On 16.7.2021, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, a part of the order was dictated but, subsequently, on request made by the learned counsel for the respondents the learned Judge permitted them to make a mention in the open Court on 22.7.2021. On 22.7.2021, the matter was taken up on board, the learned counsel were heard and the case was directed to be listed on the next date (23.7.2021) for further arguments. On 23.7.2021, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment and order was passed.
6. From the record of the writ petition it appears that on 16.7.2021, a compilation running into 112 pages was filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 enclosing copies of various judgments, inquiry reports, suspension order and records of the departmental proceedings/correspondence. It also appears from the record that that a 'short counter affidavit' running into 162 pages was filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6.
7. Before the learned Judge, it was submitted that on the basis of the preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 22.11.2018. The suspension order was revoked on 28.12.20
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
