IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that disciplinary inquiries must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the examination of witnesses and consideration of an employee's medical condition.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. Manohar Singh, the petitioner was a Technician Grade-II, working with the Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and posted in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-VI, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Aligarh. He was initially appointed on 30.7.1999 as a Coolie with the Electricity Distribution Division, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Aligarh, after following the procedure prescribed. In the year 2010, Manohar Singh was promoted to the position of a Technician Grade-II/Cashier in accordance with rules. He says that he has been working with devotion and sincerity, appreciated by his superiors. For the present, he was posted as Technician Grade-II/Cashier at the 33/11 KV Electricity Substation, Akarabad, Aligarh. His service record, until the event subject-matter of this petition, is said to be unblemished.

2. Manohar Singh says that while posted at the Electricity Distribution Division-VI, Aligarh, on the 8th of March, 2010, he suffered from some heart ailment and took his treatment at the Metro Hospital and Heart Institute, New Delhi. He underwent a surgery. Once fit, he joined his duties. Much later, on 10.1.2018, when he was transferred to the Electricity Distribution Division-VI, Aligarh, he suffered another setback to his health. On the 12th of January, 2018, he had a brain haemorrhage that led to paralysis in the right side of his body. He was again admitted to the care of the Metro Hospital and Multi-Speciality Wing, Sector 11, NOIDA. He is confined to bed eversince.

3. The petitioner was transferred once more to the Electricity Distribution Division, 33/11 KV Substation, Akarabad, Aligarh in the month of January, 2020. He says that there, a certain cashier, Dhanesh Singh Yadav, an Assistant Accountant Ram Prakash, besides a Junior Engineer and an Executive Engineer, in collusion with each other, made an ID of the petitioner's for revenue collection. After suffering paralysis, the petitioner is unable to move anywhere. This gave opportunity to Dhanesh Singh, Ram Prakash, the Junior Engineer and the Executive Engineer to collect revenues under the one-time settlement scheme, utilising the petitioner's ID. Later on, they came up with allegations of embezzlement against the petitioner, on the basis of which, the Executive Engineer passed an order of suspension pending inquiry against him on 18.5.2021.

4. It is the petitioner's case that during this period of time, on the same allegations as those subject-matter of the contemplated departmental inquiry, at that stage, a First Information Report was also lodged against him on 23.5.2021. The petitioner says that he is bedridden since the year 2018 till the date he instituted this petition. He cannot speak, move or take care of his daily routine. He has not discharged his duties since the year 2018. It is this non-ambulatory condition of the petitioner, which has given opportunity to Dhanesh Yadav, the Cashier, the Assistant Accountant Ram Prakash, the Junior Engineer and the Executive Engineer to perpetrate embezzlement of revenue collections belonging to the Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short, 'the Distribution Corporation'). There is some reference to the police case, regarding which investigation seems to have been carried on while the petitioner lay in a vegetative state, as he says, but that is not of much relevance for the purpose of the present writ petition.

5. The petitioner challenged his suspension from service by means of Writ-A No. 15568 of 2021, which was disposed of with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority, the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-VI of the Distribution Corporation to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Court's order. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, to which he submitted a reply.

6. I