Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Ashok Kumar Gautam - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15714 of 2023
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Disciplinary Action - Employee Misconduct - U.P. Power Corporation Limited Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 - The court found that the disciplinary inquiry was flawed due to lack of evidence and failure to follow proper procedures, leading to the quashing of penalties imposed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was penalized for misconduct related to the sanctioning of an electricity connection without proper procedure, resulting in financial loss to the company. The disciplinary inquiry was challenged for lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the inquiry report was inadequate, lacking proper evidence and failing to adhere to the required procedures for a disciplinary inquiry, thus rendering the penalties imposed unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary inquiry conducted against the petitioner adhered to the principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements set forth in the applicable regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in disciplinary proceedings involving major penalties, the burden of proof lies with the employer, who must present both documentary and oral evidence, including witness testimonies, to substantiate the charges.
Result: The court quashed the disciplinary orders and the inquiry report, allowing for a fresh inquiry to be conducted.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
This writ petition has been instituted challenging the order dated 14.6.2021 passed by the Managing Director, Kanpur Electric Supply Company Limited, 14/71, Civil Lines, KESA House, Kanpur holding the petitioner guilty after disciplinary proceedings and awarding him the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, besides recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,09,138.40/-. Also under challenge is the appellate order dated 5.4.2023 passed by the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow passed on the petitioner's departmental appeal whereby the Chairman has rejected the appeal and enhanced the penalty awarded to withholding of three increments with cumulative effect and maintaining the recovery ordered by the Disciplinary Authority.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the employ of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation in the year 1999. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 8.6.2008 and posted with the Electricity Distribution Division, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited, Kanpur Nagar (for short, 'the KESCo'). He worked on the said post up to 6.9.2014. On the 6th of September, 2014, the petitioner was transferred from Vikas Nagar to Sarvodaya Nagar. He joined his station of transfer where he commenced performing his duties.
3. According to the petitioner, on 19.8.2014, one Smt. Vimla Devi applied for a new service connection. She made an application for the purpose. The petitioner inspected her premises on 26.8.2014 and issued a certificate dated the 26th August, 2014, certifying the distance between the nearest pole and her premises to be 210 meters. After the premises had been inspected, the prospective consumer was informed by the petitioner about the distance charges to be borne and endorsed a remark on the application to the effect that the consumer is satisfied about the distance charges. The applicant/consumer deposited a sum of Rs. 61,200/- on 3.9.2014 under the head of miscellaneous fee chargeable for extra cable.
4. On the 15th of September, 2014, the Assistant Engineer, Ekdhar Charan submitted a report asking the petitioner for approval in regard to the connection last mentioned. The petitioner signed his approval about the receipt of Rs. 20,925/- on account of security money, meter charges, service line charges, system loading charges et cetera.
5. The petitioner was relieved of his duties at the Electricity Distribution Division, Vikas Nagar, as already said, for the next posting at Sarvodaya Nagar.
6. A random inspection of the consumer's premises was done on 7.11.2014 by a team comprising the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer, the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer. The inspection team submitted a report saying that variable cost for 170 meters of cable had been deposited while the distance of the premises from the electrified area was found to be 600 meters. It was also remarked that without erecting a new line, the connection had been sanctioned and installed. Therefore, the service connection was temporarily disconnected.
7. The Superintending Engineer-IV, vide letter dated 11.11.2014, asked the Assistant Engineer, Ekdhar Charan to show-cause why charges for 170 meters of cable alone had been secured when the distance between the premises and the nearest pole was more than 800 meters.
8. It is the petitioner's case that the estimate for the new service connection was drawn up by the Executive Engineer (Distribution), R.K. Soni, the Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Ajay Kumar and the Junior Engineer (Distribution), Shailendra Dwivedi which was passed by the Superintending Engineer, Circle-4th, (D-4) on 17.11.2014. It appears to be incorrectly mentioned as 17.11.2017 in paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition.
9. On 19.11.2014, Arvind Kishore, Superintending Engineer-IV, KESCo, made a complaint to the Managing Director saying that Ekdhar Charan, t
In disciplinary proceedings, the employer must prove charges through evidence, including witness testimonies, especially when imposing major penalties, to ensure adherence to principles of natural ju....
The necessity for the employer to discharge their burden before the Inquiry Officer by leading documentary as well as oral evidence to prove the charges, particularly in cases likely to lead to the i....
The duty of the establishment to produce witnesses and evidence in departmental inquiries, especially in cases involving a major penalty, and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.
In disciplinary inquiries for major penalties, the establishment must present evidence and examine witnesses; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the establishment to produce witnesses and documentary evidence to prove charges in a departmental enquiry, especially in cases t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, including the need for the establishment to prove charges through evidence, bo....
Disciplinary inquiries must adhere to procedural safeguards, including the presentation of evidence, especially in cases involving major penalties.
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
