The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for appealability of interlocutory orders, emphasizing the need for a direct and immediate adverse effect on a party's rights for an interlocutory order to be appealable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Akansha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-appellant, Shri. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Sri Manu Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner-respondent.

2. This intra-court appeal has been filed by Sri M. Devraj, Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow, being aggrieved by the order of learned single judge dated 7.8.2023, passed in Writ-A No. 12847 of 2023 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and 4 Others).

3. By that order, the learned single judge has required the present respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Revising Authority) to explain the circumstances in which he failed to notice the “gaping flaw in the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer” as described by the learned single judge. For ready reference, the entire order dated 7.8.2023, passed by the learned single judge is quoted below :

“Let M. Devraj, former Chairman Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan, 14-Ashok Marg, Lucknow be impleaded as a party respondent during the course of the day.

M. Devraj, the then Chairman Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow in an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereagainst an appeal was pending, intervened and exercised his revisional jurisdiction under Regulation 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 and enhanced the punishment awarded to the petitioner to one of dismissal from service. It appears upon a reading of the inquiry report submitted in the matter that though the charges against the petitioner were very serious, and, if proved, would in all likelihood lead to the imposition of a major penalty, yet the establishment did not examine any witness or lead oral evidence to prove the charges.

The Chairman, who passed the impugned order pending the appeal seeking to exercise his revisional orders prima facie seems to have scant knowledge of the law and apparently is not legally trained. He did not notice prima facie this flaw in proceedings of the inquiry, which goes to the root of the matter and proceeded to enhance the punishment after a show cause notice on the basis of an inquiry report where the establishment had to establish the charges by leading oral evidence.

Let M. Devraj, former Chairman Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, wherever he is posted currently, explain the circumstances in which he failed to notice the aforesaid gaping flaw in the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer while passing the impugned order.

Let the incumbent Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan, 14-Ashok Marg, Lucknow file his affidavit indicating his stand in the matter on or before 18.08.2023.

The incumbent Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan, 14-Ashok Marg, Lucknow shall cause notice of this petition and the order made today to be served upon M. Devraj, former Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan, 14-Ashok Marg, Lucknow, wherever he is currently posted.

Lay this petition as fresh on 18.08.2023.

Let this order be communicated to M. Devraj, former Chairman Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited thorugh the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan, 14-Ashok Marg, Lucknow and to the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan, 14-Ashok Marg, Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.”

4. The learned Additional Advocate General states – the challenge raised in the writ petition was to an order passed by the Revising Authority, as he appellant-respondent then was i.e., Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited (for short “UPPCL”), arising from an internal disciplinary proceeding of UPPCL. By the original minor penalty order dated 4.9.2021, censure entry had been awarded to the orig