The establishment must prove charges through a formal inquiry and evidence before imposing major penalties. Non-holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw that can vitiate disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. This judgment will decide Writ-A No.4628 of 2023 and connected Writ-A No.12441 of 2023. Writ-A No.4628 of 2023 has been heard as the leading case and facts, therefore, will be noticed from the said petition. Both the petitions have been filed by Mahendra Pal Sharma, a Technician Grade-II in the employ of the U.P. Power Corporation, who functioned for sometime as the In-charge Junior Engineer and for sometime as the Draftsman. The petitioner has risen from the ranks, being appointed a Coolie on 29.09.1978. He was promoted to the post of a Technician Grade-II vide order dated 30.05.2010 and on the same day, given the charge of Junior Engineer, 33/11 KV Electricity Sub-Station Bankapur. He discharged those duties, as he says, ably. In the month of July, 2017, the petitioner was the In-charge Junior Engineer. On 16.07.2018, he was given the charge of the Revenue In-charge by the Superintending Engineer, apart from his regular charge of Junior Engineer, managing the the 33/11 KV Sub-Station. In addition to both these responsibilities, he was also given charge of the draftsman.

2. It is the petitioner's case that on 10th October, 2018, the Executive Engineer, Jewar directed the petitioner to take care of the duties of accounts along with the Junior Engineer. The petitioner was transferred to Burhana, Saharanpur and then to the Electricity Distribution Division, Greater NOIDA. He retired from service on 30.06.2019, while posted at the Electricity Distribution Division, Greater NOIDA. He retired from the post of Technician Grade-II, which was the post substantively held by him. Post retirement, the petitioner was paid his general provident fund and dues on account of leave encashment, but no other retiral dues, including the several of his arrears and pension were paid. This happened in the manner that when the petitioner was on the verge of retirement, a charge-sheet was served upon him on 05.05.2019, carrying charges to the effect that some tubewell connection had been illegally sanctioned and an inquiry was conducted vide order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Managing Director, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. This was a preliminary inquiry and the Inquiry Committee by their report dated 05.11.2018 indicted the petitioner.

3. The sole basis of the charge-sheet was whatever material the Inquiry Committee entrusted with the preliminary inquiry gathered and submitted through their report of 5th November, 2018. The petitioner upon service of the charge-sheet submitted his reply dated 15.05.2019 to the Inquiry Officer, who was the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Test Division-II, NOIDA, stating all relevant, true and correct facts in his defence, as the petitioner says. It was pleaded, amongst other things, that the petitioner had no concern with Village Kani Garhi and he was posted at 33/11 KV Sub-Station Bankapur. He was detailed to revenue duties, where his assignment was to issue receipts. He was the Revenue In-charge.

4. It is the petitioner's case that after his reply, the Inquiry Officer did not proceed with the inquiry until the petitioner attained his superannuation. It is also the petitioner's case that the Inquiry Officer submitted some inquiry report that he sent to the Managing Director. He did not find the petitioner guilty. The Managing Director was not inclined to accept the report and by his order dated 26.05.2020 directed the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry again and submit a fresh report. The Executive Engineer (Hydel), Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vide letter dated 19.10.2020 asked the Inquiry Officer to complete the inquiry within 15 days. The Inquiry Officer put certain questions to the petitioner and also asked him to appear for personal hearing. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and answered questions, that were put to him on 05.09.2020. No decision by the Inquiry Officer was rendered in the form of a report, but the pendency of the inquiry proceedin