Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established rules, and findings must be based on charges explicitly stated; failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid.

JUDGMENT

Manish Mathur, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Shashwat Chaudhary, learned counsel holding brief on behalf of Mr. Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for parties.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 15.03.2016 whereby punishment of censure and withholding of annual increment for a period of two years has been imposed along with recovery of Rs. 37,126. Also under challenge is the appellate order dated 24.08.2018.

3. Pleadings in the matter have already been exchanged.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a charge sheet dated 02.04.2014 was issued to the petitioner containing a single charge with regard to certain constructions which were undertaken when petitioner was posted as Deputy Project Manager (Civil) in District Saharanpur. The primary ground of challenge against the aforesaid order is that although minor penalty was imposed against the petitioner but proceedings were initiated after issuance of charge sheet and therefore, the inquiry was required to be conducted in terms of Rule 35 of the Model Discipline and Appeal Rules for public undertakings as applicable in the U.P. State Bridge Corporation. It is further submitted that it would be evident from perusal of inquiry report and the impugned order it selves that petitioner was infact exonerated with regard to charge levelled against him in the charge sheet and the Inquiry Officer, on the contrary, has found the charge of negligence established against petitioner although negligence was not indicated as a charge in the charge sheet.

5. It is also submitted that perusal of punishment order will indicate the fact that exoneration of petitioner with regard to charges levelled against him have been ignored while imposing the impugned punishment upon petitioner particularly when there was no question of imposing any recovery against petitioner since again there was no such charge levelled against petitioner or even established against him. It is therefore submitted that, in case, disciplinary authority was disagreeing with the inquiry report, it was incumbent upon him to issue show cause notice indicating such disagreement in order for petitioner to effectively put forth his case. It is therefore submitted that inquiry proceedings have been held dehors the rules.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the charge sheet itself indicates serious charges levelled against petitioner pertaining to lapses having occurred during construction activities which were undertaken under supervision of petitioner.

7. It is further submitted that ample opportunity of hearing and even personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner therefore, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice have been violated. It is submitted that on the contrary, a lenient view has been taken in imposing only a minor penalty against petitioner.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it would be conclusive to advert to the procedure required to be followed in the corporation as evident from the Model Discipline and Appeal Rules which admittedly are applicable in the corporation. Rule 35 of the aforesaid Rules is as follows:-

"(1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of rule 33 shall be made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this rule. (2)

(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee, it may itself enquire into, appoint any public servant (herein after called the inquiring authority) to inquire into the truth there of.

(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations against the employee. The charges, together with statement of the