Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Rajesh Kumar Saraswat – Petitioner
Versus
The Director Board of U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 13315 of 2023
Decided On : 19-10-2023
Dismissal from Service - Domestic Inquiry - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - [DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE] - [DOMESTIC INQUIRY] - [Dying-in-Harness Rules, IPC Section 409, U.P. Power Corporation Regulations-2020] - The court found that the domestic inquiry violated the principles of natural justice as the establishment failed to produce witnesses or documentary evidence in support of the charges. The court emphasized the duty of the establishment to prove the charges by examining evidence, particularly witnesses, especially in cases involving the imposition of a major penalty. The court quashed the dismissal order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with entitlement to salary from the date of the judgment, while allowing the respondents to proceed afresh with the disciplinary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Office Assistant-III/Cashier, was dismissed from service following a domestic inquiry that alleged his involvement in a robbery and embezzlement. The petitioner challenged the dismissal on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the domestic inquiry violated the principles of natural justice as the establishment failed to produce witnesses or documentary evidence in support of the charges. The court emphasized the duty of the establishment to prove the charges by examining evidence, particularly witnesses, especially in cases involving the imposition of a major penalty.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in the domestic inquiry, duty of the establishment to prove charges by examining evidence, particularly witnesses, especially in cases involving the imposition of a major penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving the imposition of a major penalty, no valid inquiry can be held unless the establishment proves charges by examining evidence, particularly witnesses. The more serious the charge and its consequences, the more strict adherence to the procedure prescribed ought to be.
Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with entitlement to salary from the date of the judgment, while allowing the respondents to proceed afresh with the disciplinary proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. The petitioner, who was an Office Assistant-III/Cashier (Revenue) in the employ of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Corporation’) impugns his dismissal from service vide order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Chairman of the Corporation as well as the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and affirming the Disciplinary Authority.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant-III under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, favoured with a compassionate appointment on account of his father’s demise in harness. The petitioner’s father was a Junior Engineer. He died on 12.08.2008. The petitioner was appointed on 20.11.2008. The petitioner joined service on the date the letter of appointment was issued and commenced discharging his duties. The petitioner was appointed in the office of Superintending Engineer, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, District Hathras. The petitioner was transferred to the newly created office of the Electricity Distribution Division, Sadabad, Hathras and relieved on 21.08.2010. The petitioner joined as an Assistant-III in the newly created office of the Electricity Distribution Division-IV, Sadabad, Hathras on 22.08.2010. The petitioner says that while holding the post of a Cashier (Revenue) in the office of the Executive Engineer, there was a robbery on 16.04.2013. The petitioner reported the incident to the respondents and also lodged a first information report at the Police Station the same day. The Superintending Engineer made a preliminary inquiry into the incident and submitted a report dated 16.04.2013. He held no employee of the Corporation responsible for the incident. It was a case of loot of the bag, carrying cash in the sum of Rs. 22,70,000/- by three motorcycle-borne robbers, who robbed the petitioner at gun point, just as he was about to enter the Bank with the cash bag, after parking his vehicle. It is averred that at the relevant date and time i.e. 16.04.2013, there was neither any guard appointed nor any security detailed to facilitate the safe deposit of cash in the Bank. It is also pleaded that there was an insurance to the extent of Rs. 16,00,000/- whereas the recovery and collection in the Bank was always more than the said sum. Subsequently, on account of aforesaid incident dated 16.04.2013, the Superintending Engineer passed an order dated 03.05.2013, placing the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry. The petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 395 of 2013 under Section 409 IPC, P.S Sadabad, District Hathras and sent to jail. It is submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated and has been charged with loss of the said sum vide a charge-sheet dated 16.03.2017. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet after gathering relevant facts and materials in support of his case. The charge-sheet carried twelve charges, all of which were denied by the petitioner.
3. It is the petitioner’s case specifically pleaded in paragraph no. 15 of the writ petition that the Inquiry Committee, without issuing any notice, conveying the date, time and venue of inquiry to the petitioner to participate, without perusing the relevant records or giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, submitted an inquiry report dated 12.03.2019, holding charges nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 12 proved, charges nos. 9, 10, and 11 partly proved and charge no. 7, not proved. A copy of the inquiry report is also on record.
4. The Executive Engineer (Administration-2), Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Agra issued a notice dated 13.08.2020 to the petitioner, asking him to submit his response to the inquiry report. The petitioner, in response to the notice dated 13.08.2020, submitted a reply dated 29.09.2020. He mentioned in his
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 requirement for the establishment to prove charges through oral and documentary evidence, and the necessity of holding a proper inquiry de novo....
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
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 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 inquiry proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the requirement to lead oral evidence and conduct a fair inquiry.
The inquiry process for major penalties must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring evidence from the Establishment and proper notice to the accused.
In disciplinary inquiries for major penalties, the establishment must present evidence and examine witnesses; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.
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
