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 imposition of a major penalty.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manu Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 6 and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, was an Office Assistant in the employ of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. Long ago, he had entered service of the late Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, now represented by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the Corporation’) and the many other Distribution Corporations that have since come up as successors of the erstwhile Board. The petitioner was posted at the Electricity Distribution Division, Kasganj from 20.10.1994 to 31.08.2017, which falls under the administrative control of the Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Agra (for short ‘the Distribution Corporation’) represented by its Managing Director, besides the overall control of the Corporation.

3. A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 11.04.2018 by one Satya Dev, an Executive Engineer with the Electricity Distribution Division, Kasganj, giving rise to Case Crime No. 230 of 2018, under Section 7/13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj. The FIR said no more than this that the information was being laid against the petitioner on the basis of a letter dated 27.03.2018 from the Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance), U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow and another letter dated 04.04.2018 from the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Kasganj, directing the informant to lodge an FIR against the petitioner, then posted at the Electricity Distribution Division, Etah, for an offence of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. A copy of the letters was annexed to the FIR, with the FIR not of itself disclosing any allegation constituting the offence. The written report, on the basis of which the check FIR was registered, virtually says nothing except to convey to the Police that the informant had been asked to get the FIR registered on the basis of letters that he had received from the Additional Director of Police and the Superintending Engineer, last mentioned.

4. It appears that a complaint was laid against the petitioner by one Ashok Kumar, alleging that the petitioner had amassed wealth beyond the known sources of his income. The complaint was addressed to the Vigilance Department of the U.P. Power Corporation and led to a preliminary inquiry report dated 05.04.2014, being submitted by the Vigilance Department to the official competent. The petitioner was never informed of this report or its contents. This was followed by a detailed inquiry report dated 29.08.2018, as the petitioner says, which was submitted to the Chairman of the Corporation. This report, according to the petitioner, said that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period 20.05.1992 to 31.03.2010. The report said that during the relevant period of time, the petitioner’s income was Rs.21,69,055/- whereas he spent a sum of Rs.33,98,427/-. Apparently, the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Department to the Chairman opined that the petitioner had with him Rs.12,29,372/- during the relevant period of time in excess of his known sources of income. The excess was a percentage equivalent of 56.68.

5. Pending investigation into the FIR lodged against the petitioner, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.07.2019 issued by the Chief Engineer (HR-cum-Disciplinary Proceedings), Distribution Corporation, carrying a solitary charge relating to his income for the check period from 20.05.1992 to 31.03.2010, that was in excess of his known sources. The petitioner answered the charge-sheet vide his reply dated 25.09.2019 subm