IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including proper approval of chargesheets and the necessity of oral enquiries, to ensure fairness and legality in the imposition of penalties.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

2. The petitioner before this Court while working as Executive Engineer came to be suspended on 5.10.2019 setting into motion a regular disciplinary enquiry. It transpires from the record that some preliminary fact finding enquiry report was submitted by a three member committee constituted in that regard on 3rd April, 2020 and as a consequence thereof, a regular chargesheet was issued on 26.10.2020 to the petitioner which as many as three articles of charges to which petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 31.12.2020 denying all the charges.

3. It further transpires that thereafter an oral enquiry was held as per chargesheet itself petitioner was issued with notice by the enquiry officer to appear before the enquiry committee and get himself examined. In response to the same petitioner did appear before the Enquiry Committee on 15.2.2021 and an oral statement was recorded, which has come to be so noted on the order sheet of the enquiry proceeding as has come to be annexed alongwith counter affidavit as Annexure CA-1. It has come further to be noted therein that petitioner did not ask for any other witness to be examined, nor did he file any other document in addition to what he had already submitted alongwith reply. It is thereafter that oral enquiry was stated to have been concluded and the final enquiry came to be submitted indicting the petitioner of the charges levelled in the chargehseet. Soon after the report was submitted bringing home the charge by enquiry committee on 15.2.2021, petitioner was issued with a show cause notice to which he submitted reply and finally his reply having not been found satisfactory, he was awarded with maximum punishment of dismissal from service. Upon appeal being preferred against the said order, it met the same fate as his explanation offered to the show cause notice not found satisfactory and hence this petition.

4. Twin arguments advanced by learned counsel for Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner:

a. The chargesheet issued to the petitioner was approved only by Managing Director and Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation being appointing authority and the disciplinary authority, the chargesheet ought to have been issued only after approval of the Chairman under the relevant regulation. In the circumstances, therefore, once the chargesheet was not approved by the competent authority, the entire enquiry pursuant thereto was taken to be without lawful authority and resultantly the order of dismissal from service was also to be held bad; and

b. Except for the oral examination of the petitioner, no oral enquiry was held, inasmuch, no departmental witness was examined and enquiry officer instead of getting preliminary enquiry report proved before him proceeded to rely upon the same and the statement made before the committee that had held preliminary enquiry report brought home the charge which was against procedure prescribed for holding major enquiry.

5. Learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the relevant regulations as contained in 2021 Regulation.

6. Meeting the arguments advanced by learned Senior Advocate Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Board of Directors of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. had adopted a resolution as back as on 28th April, 2010, by which Managing Director have been conferred with power of the disciplinary authority in all matters of disciplinary proceeding and imposition of various penalties except penalty of dismissal, which power continues to be vested with Chairman of Corporation. He has brought on record the consequential letter issued pursuant to resolution brought by the Board of Director dated 28th April, 201