In disciplinary inquiries for major penalties, the establishment must present evidence and examine witnesses; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2023, passed by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow, punishing the petitioner with the award of a censure and withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. The order aforesaid has been made after departmental inquiry. Also under challenge is the charge-sheet dated 23.6.2022, on the foot of which the departmental inquiry has been held and the inquiry report dated 18.10.2022 submitted by the Inquiry Committee leading to the impugned order. The petitioner further claims a mandamus to the respondents, ordering them to pay his increments as well as arrears, worked out on that basis, together with interest, of which he has been deprived in consequence of the impugned order.

2. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the petitioner was initially appointed an Assistant Accountant through direct recruitment on 24.12.1992 in the service of the U.P. State Electricity Board, now the U.P. Power Corporation Limited. He has risen through the ranks to be promoted to the post of Accounts Officer, the position that he currently holds. He is scheduled to retire on 31.1.2025, upon attaining the age of superannuation. While the petitioner was posted as an Assistant Account Officer (R) with the Electricity Urban Distribution Division, NOIDA during the period December, 2009 to 8.10.2023, a charge-sheet dated 23.6.2022 was issued by the Inquiry Committee, laying the solitary charge that 55 receipt books issued to Smt. Neetu Chaudhary, Office Accountant-III, were not taken back and the revenue collected through these receipts was not deposited by her in the coffers of the Power Corporation. An irregularity in the entries of receipt books and receipt registers was also alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet vide his reply dated 8.9.2022, denying the sole charge. He sought exoneration. The petitioner was summoned for a personal hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 29.8.2022.

3. It is the petitioner's case that no witnesses were examined in support of the charges by the Establishment before the Inquiry Committee or evidence led to prove the solitary charge. The inquiry report was founded on the edifice of the charge-sheet, the petitioner's reply and the personal hearing afforded to him without the examination of witnesses for the Establishment. It is also pleaded that no date, time and place was scheduled by the Inquiry Committee when evidence for the Establishment would be heard in the petitioner's presence. The said facts are more or less asserted in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the writ petition.

4. This then being the short point apparently involved, if the inquiry was at all held according to the salutary procedure envisaged for the holding of a valid inquiry in a matter where a major penalty could be imposed, when the petition came up for admission on 12.11.2024, we passed the following order:

“The petitioner, after disciplinary proceedings, has been awarded the major punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect by the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is vitiated because the inquiry on the foot of which it has been made, has violated salutary principles of fair procedure, inasmuch as no date, time and place was fixed. It is further submitted that no witnesses were examined in support of the establishment's case by the respondents. Averments in this regard have been made in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the writ petition.

Issue notice.

Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is accepted by Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate and that on behalf of respondent No. 1 by Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Both the learned counsel for the respondents are granted two weeks time to file a counter-affidavit.

Since a short point is involved, lay a