Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Vinod Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 10552 of 2023
Decided On : 19-10-2023
Electricity Theft - Disciplinary Proceedings - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 135, Section 136 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Managing Director of the Distribution Corporation to impose penalties, the necessity for an oral inquiry, and the burden of proof on the establishment. The court found that the impugned order and the inquiry report were manifestly illegal and deserved to be quashed. The court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on his post as an Assistant Engineer and pay him emoluments attached to the said post from the date of the judgment. The respondents were also given the option to proceed afresh against the petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet, strictly in accordance with the law and the guidance in the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, was reduced in rank to the post of a Junior Engineer as a penalty after disciplinary proceedings were held against him for negligence in discharging his supervisory duties related to electricity theft. The petitioner challenged the order through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order and the inquiry report were found to be manifestly illegal and were quashed. The court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on his post as an Assistant Engineer and pay him emoluments attached to the said post from the date of the judgment. The respondents were given the option to proceed afresh against the petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet, strictly in accordance with the law and the guidance in the judgment.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the Managing Director of the Distribution Corporation to impose penalties, the necessity for an oral inquiry, and the burden of proof on the establishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and that the proceedings before the Inquiry Committee did not comply with the fundamental principle regarding holding of disciplinary proceedings. The court emphasized 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 imposition of a major penalty.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned order was quashed. A mandamus was issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on his post as an Assistant Engineer and pay him emoluments attached to the said post from the date of the judgment. The respondents were given the option to proceed afresh against the petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet, strictly in accordance with the law and the guidance in the judgment. The entitlement of the petitioner to receive his emoluments attached to the post of an Assistant Engineer for the period between the date of the impugned order and the judgment was to be decided, subject to events in proceedings, if elected to be taken afresh.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Varanasi, reducing the petitioner in rank to the post of a Junior Engineer from an Assistant Engineer, as a measure of penalty, after holding disciplinary proceedings.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited [‘Power Corporation’ for short] is a government company under the administrative and financial control of the State Government. The Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited [‘Distribution Corporation’ for short] is a subsidiary company of the Power Corporation incorporated to discharge the functions of electricity supply and distribution to consumers. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) vide appointment order dated 05.11.2007 in the employ of the Power Corporation. He has rendered continuous service since then. The petitioner was promoted to the post of an Assistant Engineer vide order dated 16.02.2018. During the period of his service, the petitioner has been posted at different stations and was last posted from 07.12.2021 at the Electricity Distribution Sub-Division-I, Phulpur, Azamgarh, falling under Electricity Distribution Division-IV, Azamgarh. According to the petitioner, he was posted from March, 2018 to December, 2021 at the Electricity Distribution Sub-Division-I, Atraulia, Azamgarh. While posted there, the petitioner received confidential information on 18.02.2020 and 19.02.2020 on the basis of a reconnaissance done on the premises of a certain M/s. S. Milan Agro Industries, Village Saraiya Nebuadeeh, Post Usraith, Police Station Atraulia, District Azamgarh to the effect that an electricity transformer was found near the rice mill aforesaid, leading to a strong suspicion of electricity theft. On the basis of information aforesaid, that was conveyed to the higher authorities, an enforcement team was constituted by the Chief Engineer, Azamgarh, with the petitioner as a member of the team, to conduct an enforcement raid on the premises of M/s. S. Milan Agro Industries. In the night intervening 19/20.02.2020, the premises of the rice mill was raided, leading to detection of theft of electricity. A checking report No. 139 dated 19/20.02.2020 was drawn up.
3. In consequence of the above raid, two first information reports were lodged at Police Station - Anti Power Theft, Azamgarh, to wit, Crime No. 294 of 2020 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 lodged by the petitioner on 20.02.2020 and Crime No. 562 of 2020, under Section 136 of the Act last mentioned, lodged on 21.03.2020.
4. A provisional assessment order was passed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-VI on 20.02.2020, levying a penalty of 2,33,65,028/- against one Sanjay Rai Rs. 2,3,65,028/- against one Sanjay Rai alias Guddu. After issue of the provisional assessment order, the Executive Engineer, by a letter dated 18.01.2021, made certain inquiries from the petitioner and the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 19.01.2021.
5. The provisional assessment order was challenged by the consumer before this Court, where directions were issued, in consequence of which, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, vide memorandum dated 22.08.2022, returned the recovery certificate unrealized. Subsequently, a fresh recovery certificate was issued against the partners of M/s. S. Milan Agro Industries, to wit, Smt. Madhuri Rai and Smt. Kanchan Rai dated 08.06.2023, directing recovery of a sum of 80,21,904/-. Rs. 2,33,65,028/- against one Sanjay Rai
6. On the basis of these facts, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and a charge-sheeet dated 27.04.2020 issued against him, carrying a charge to the effect that the petitioner did not make requisite inspection or take timely steps for removing the 400 KVA transformer, on account of which, theft o
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....
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 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.
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....
Disciplinary inquiries must adhere to procedural safeguards, including the presentation of evidence, especially in cases involving major penalties.
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the establishment to produce witnesses and documentary evidence to prove charges in a departmental enquiry, especially in cases t....
In disciplinary inquiries for major penalties, the establishment must present evidence and examine witnesses; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
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
