Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Rajeev Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 10999 of 2023
Decided On : 19-10-2023
Embezzlement - Employment Dispute - Indian Penal Code, Section 409 - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Labour Law - Domestic Enquiry - Major Penalty - Quashing of Order
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Agent and Head Cashier, was dismissed from the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited's service due to embezzlement committed by another employee. The petitioner denied involvement and cited lack of training and supervision as defenses.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the domestic enquiry did not adhere to the principles of holding a disciplinary inquiry for charges leading to a major penalty. The Inquiry Committee did not act as impartial arbiters, and the petitioner's defenses were not adequately considered. The Managing Director's order was deemed cryptic and lacking in reasoning.
Issues: The issues involved the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the sufficiency of evidence, and the validity of the Managing Director's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and impartial domestic enquiry, as per established procedure, before imposing a major penalty. It highlighted the need for the establishment to prove charges through oral evidence and the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to provide reasoned findings.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with current salary. The respondents were given the option to conduct a fresh inquiry, with specific guidance provided by the Court.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mani Shanker Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Ram Bahadur Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and Ms. Monica Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, dismissing the petitioner from the Corporation’s service.
3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the U.P. Power Corporation on 27.07.2023 by Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and original records of the inquiry also produced before the Court on the date last mentioned. These records have been retained and perused. A statement was made on behalf of learned Counsel for the parties on 27.07.2023 that they do not intend to file any further affidavits. Accordingly, the writ petition was admitted to hearing and heard forthwith on the said date. Judgment was reserved.
4. The petitioner was an Executive Agent and functioning as the Head Cashier (Revenue) at the Vidyut Vitran Khand-I, Baghpat. At the relevant time, one Suresh Babu, who held the post of a Technician (Grade-II) with the Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, was assigned duties of the cashier. He was later on promoted in the month of March, 2019 to the post of a Junior Engineer, going by his cadre. According to the petitioner, after Suresh Babu's promotion, the Managing Director, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., on account of some suspicion relating to accounts, directed reconciliation to be made. It was discovered that there was embezzlement committed by Suresh Babu to the tune of Rs.3,68,25,552/- out of the revenues collected on behalf of the Corporation. A First Information Report was lodged by the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand-I, Baghpat with the Police, that came to be registered as Crime No. 300 of 2019, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat. In the FIR, Suresh Babu was nominated as the main accused and besides him, four other persons, to wit, the petitioner (Rajeev Kumar), Vikalp Mahesh, Ishpal Singh and Rajveer Singh. The Police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet dated 13.11.2019 against Narendra alias Pintu and Fakhruddin for offences punishable under Sections 408/120-B IPC and exculpated the petitioner with the remark that his implication in the case was found false upon investigation.
5. It is the petitioner's case that he was suspended pending enquiry on 16.05.2019 and during his suspension on 07.09.2019, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 07.09.2019. He submitted his reply dated 20.09.2019, denying the charges. The petitioner, amongst other things, said that he was neither working with the Vidyut Vitran Khand-I, Baghpat since 01.05.2015 to 16.05.2019, nor during the period 01.05.2015 to 16.05.2019 and 08.11.2013 to 13.12.2014.
6. It is the petitioner's case that he has, therefore, no concern about the embezzlement, which happened in a different period of time between the years 2013-14. The petitioner has asserted that he was working with the Vidyut Vitran Khand-I, Baghpat for a short time in the year 2014-15. It is next made out that the two charges framed against the petitioner in the charge-sheet allege no embezzlement by him, but negligence as the Chief Cashier, leading to embezzlement by Suresh Babu, who is at the centre stage of the charge, subject matter of this enquiry. It is also said that the petitioner had informed his superior Authorities about the embezzlement, but no action was taken. It is also pleaded that due to lack of training in handling the online billing system, nor the provision of an ID to do online billing work, or supervise the same, the petitioner faced hardship in dischargi
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
The inquiry proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the requirement to lead oral evidence and conduct a fair inquiry.
In cases involving the imposition of a major penalty, the establishment must prove charges by examining evidence, particularly witnesses, and adhere to the principles of natural justice in the domest....
In disciplinary proceedings, the employer must prove charges through evidence, including witness testimonies, especially when imposing major penalties, to ensure adherence to principles of natural ju....
The necessity for the employer to discharge their burden before the Inquiry Officer by leading documentary as well as oral evidence to prove the charges, particularly in cases likely to lead to the i....
The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including proper approval of chargesheets and the necessity of oral enquiries, to ensure fairness a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to conduct a proper departmental enquiry, especially in cases involving major penalties, violates the principles of natural justic....
The establishment has the burden of proving the charges against the delinquent employee by leading oral evidence, in addition to documentary evidence, in a disciplinary inquiry that may result in the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the establishment to prove charges through oral and documentary evidence, and the necessity of holding a proper inquiry de novo....
The duty of the establishment to produce witnesses and evidence in departmental inquiries, especially in cases involving a major penalty, and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.
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
