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.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.08.2022, passed by the Managing Director, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Meerut, punishing the petitioner with award of a censure entry and withholding one increment with cumulative effect. Also, under challenge is the charge-sheet dated 15.02.2021 and the inquiry report dated 02.03.2022, the inquiry report being one submitted by the Temporary Inquiry Committee, VI.

2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed an Assistant Engineer in the service of the U.P. Power Corporation on 24.07.2014. He was posted as the Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Sub-Station Division-II, Gulawathi under the Electricity Distribution Division-I, Bulandshahr on 08.08.2014. He is presently posted as the Assistant Engineer (Revenue), Electricity Distribution Division-III, Bulandshahr. A letter dated 11.09.2015 was issued by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Bulandshahr and forwarded by the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle- II, Bulandshahr to the Chief Engineer (Distribution) Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad. It was said that there was an illegal shifting of some electricity poles carrying the 33 KV line from the 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Gulawathi to 33/11 KV Sub-Station, Gulawathi No. 1, wherein the petitioner appeared to be involved. On the basis of the said allegation, the petitioner was suspended from service pending inquiry vide order dated 18.09.2015. Upon condition that the inquiry would continue, the petitioner was reinstated in service by the Chief Engineer, Ghaziabad Circle Ghaziabad vide order dated 01.10.2015. The petitioner was attached to the office of Electricity Distribution Circle-II, Bulandshahr.

3. There are then averments about the grievance made by the petitioner to release his salary and allowances for the period of suspension, as the disciplinary proceedings were continuing for a very long period of time and no charge-sheet was served for more than four years. In the meantime, the respondents stopped the petitioner's increment pending settlement of his entitlement to receive salary for the period of suspension from service. This led to a writ petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 825 of 2020. These are details and matters, which are not very relevant for the purpose of the present writ petition. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 15.02.2021, that is to say, more than five years after the suspension order was passed against him. The charge against the petitioner, carried in the charge-sheet dated 15.02.2021, which is the solitary charge and issued by the Inquiry Committee with the approval of the Managing Director, reads:

4. In support of the charge, the following documents were relied upon to prove it:

5. It must be remarked here that the relevant part of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1956, cited as a document, is by no means a document. To refer to the provision of a service rule as a document, ex-facie betrays lack of understanding of the law by Members of the Inquiry Committee as well as the Managing Director, who issued, and approved the charge-sheet, respectively, about something as elementary as what constitutes a document or documentary evidence and what is, in fact, nothing more than the law, under which the employee was charged. Though, failure by men not trained in law, to understand the distinction between what is law and what is documentary evidence in a case, particularly, when it is a matter of a reference alone in the charge-sheet, may not be very material but it betrays that lack of understanding of something very essential, which could ultimately bear upon the soundness of judgment of the Inquiry Tribunal as well as the Disciplinary Authority. This Court expects that in future a provision in a Service Rule shall never be referred to in a charge-sheet as a document by the respondent Cor