Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Gajendra Singh – Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others – Respondents
WRIT -A No. -14898 of 2023
Decided On : 22-12-2023
Inquiry Proceedings - U.P. Power Corporation Limited - Regulation 7 of the 2020 Regulation, State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB), Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 - The court discussed the inquiry proceedings conducted by the U.P. Power Corporation Limited and emphasized the requirement for the establishment to prove charges through oral and documentary evidence, the duty of the inquiry officer to act as an independent adjudicator, and the necessity of holding a proper inquiry de novo. The court found the inquiry proceedings procedurally flawed and quashed the impugned orders, allowing the respondents to proceed with a fresh inquiry if they choose to do so.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer at U.P. Power Corporation Limited, was served with a charge-sheet carrying three charges. The Inquiry Committee held an inquiry without producing or examining any witnesses on behalf of the establishment to prove the charges. The petitioner was punished based on this flawed inquiry, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the inquiry proceedings to be procedurally flawed and prejudicial to the petitioner's rights, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders. The respondents were given the option to proceed with a fresh inquiry from the stage of issuing the charge-sheet.
Issues: The main issue was the procedural fairness of the inquiry proceedings, specifically the failure of the establishment to prove the charges through oral and documentary evidence and the lack of a proper inquiry de novo.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for the establishment to prove charges through oral and documentary evidence, the duty of the inquiry officer to act as an independent adjudicator, and the necessity of holding a proper inquiry de novo.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, and the respondents were given the option to proceed with a fresh inquiry if they choose to do so.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is a Junior Engineer in the service of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 25.06.2019 issued by an inquiry committee constituted by the U.P. Power Corporation carrying three charges for the period of time that he was posted as a Junior Engineer with the Electricity Urban Distribution Division, Farrukhabad. The charges against the petitioner, carried in the charge-sheet, read:
2. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.06.2019 to the charge-sheet, submitting amongst others that the estimate for construction of the then proposed feeder for the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Farrukhabad was sanctioned in 2008-09, but the expenses were deposited with the respondent Corporation in 2014. Work commenced during the period when Rakesh Kumar was posted as the Junior Engineer. He never informed the petitioner nor handed over details of the materials issued earlier. The charges were specifically denied with defences in answer to each.
3. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to hold inquiry in utter breach of the salutary principles where no witness was produced or examined on behalf of the establishment to prove the charges. The Inquiry Committee submitted their report dated 20.06.2020, a copy whereof was served upon the petitioner along with a show cause notice dated 16.09.2020, asking the petitioner to submit his reply in answer to the findings of the inquiry report within three weeks. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause on 01.12.2020.
4. It is the petitioner's case that without considering the petitioner's reply, the Disciplinary Authority/ Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow vide order dated 03.03.2021 punished the petitioner with award of a censure entry and withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Dissatisfied with the order of punishment, the petitioner carried an appeal to the Board of Directors of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow vide memo of appeal dated 24.07.2021. The Appellate Authority, by their order impugned dated 27.12.2021, dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
5. The petitioner has now approached this Court aggrieved by the two orders impugned by means of the present writ petition.
6. Heard Mr. Manu Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition and Mr. Ujjwal Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents.
7. A perusal of the inquiry report shows that the Inquiry Committee proceeded in the fashion of an investigator or at best an Inquiry Committee or officer entrusted with holding a preliminary inquiry. The Inquiry Committee's report does not show that any formal proceedings of inquiry were convened, as required to be done at the stage when an inquiry into charges that may lead to the imposition of a major penalty is mandated by salutary principles. The Inquiry Committee, comprising two officers of the Corporation, looked into the charge-sheet together with the annexed documents themselves and the petitioner's reply. They decided upon the worth of the charges by perusing the charge-sheet, the reply and the documents annexed by parties. It is not even remotely discernible from a perusal of the inquiry report that the Inquiry Committee convened themselves as a formal Inquiry Tribunal, requiring the establishment to prove the charges through a Presenting Officer, acting on their behalf to lead evidence both documentary and oral. It is a salutary requirement of the law that in all cases involving charges that can lead to the imposition of a major penalty, it is the establishment's burden in the first instance to lead evidence, particularly, oral, that is by production of witnesses, to prove the charges. The documents filed along with the charge-sheet are but idle papers, which can be galvanized into evidence once introduced by the Presenting Officer and pro
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 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....
In disciplinary inquiries for major penalties, the establishment must present evidence and examine witnesses; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.
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 inquiry proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the requirement to lead oral evidence and conduct a fair inquiry.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, including the need for the establishment to prove charges through evidence, bo....
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
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....
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
