Disciplinary inquiries must adhere to procedural fairness, requiring the establishment to prove charges through evidence; failure to do so invalidates the inquiry and any resultant punishment.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow[‘the Corporation’ for short], punishing the petitioner, an Executive Engineer, with a censure and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Also under challenge is an appellate order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, rejecting the petitioner’s departmental appeal against the punishment awarded by the Chairman of the Corporation.

2. The succinct facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was selected by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Service Commission and appointed a Sub-Divisional Officer on 23.05.2012 in the employ of the Corporation. The petitioner was promoted to the post of an Executive Engineer in due course. He is currently posted in the District of Varanasi. The petitioner was earlier posted at Prayagraj during the years 2020-21. At the time he was posted at Prayagraj, an order dated 24.07.2021 was issued by the Managing Director of the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Varanasi, [‘the Distribution Corporation’ for short], directing the petitioner, who then held charge as the Executive Engineer, Electricity Stores Division, Prayagraj, to physically verify the work being done under the Asian Development Bank Project in fifteen villages of District Pratapgarh by the Works Contractor, described in a word of recent coinage as the “Executing Agency”. The works contractor in this case was M/s. Larsen & Toubro, Chennai. The direction, as aforesaid, was issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation at the instance of the Chairman of the Corporation, as the order would show to its face. It would also appear from the letter dated 14.04.2021 that the work contracted out to M/s. Larsen & Toubro was a changeover in the specified villages from Low-tension Bare Conductors, to something described as “L.T.A.B.”. In compliance with the order of 24.07.2021, the petitioner says that he visited sites on 27.07.2021. While the petitioner was away to do inspection of work sites, as directed, on 27.07.2021, in his absence, the Divisional Accountant, one Jai Prakash, is said to have abused an assistant, Ashutosh Kumar, in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Stores Division, Prayagraj, then under the petitioner’s charge. The matter appears to have been taken up by the Workers’ Union and a preliminary inquiry was ordered in the matter.

3. The petitioner, upon coming to know what had happened in his absence on 27.07.2021, issued a notice to the Divisional Accountant, Jai Prakash, besides four other employees in the Establishment, to report to him on the happenings of the day and facts relating to the incident. The incident was also reported to the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, who called a report from the petitioner in the matter. The Superintending Engineer addressed a memo dated 30.07.2021 to the petitioner, mentioning a report of the incident by the Union concerned and saying that the petitioner ought to inquire into the matter, so that it may not lead to eruption of an industrial dispute. The petitioner, by a separate order, was appointed the Inquiry Officer to hold a preliminary inquiry in the matter. This order was passed on 9th August, 2021 by the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Stores Division, Prayagraj.

4. The petitioner submitted a report about the details of the incident to the Chief Engineer on 18.08.2021. The petitioner says that on 06.10.2021, another incident happened in the office, of which the petitioner was in-charge, which came to notice through a video clip sent by the Superintending Engineer to the petitioner. The incident was about a event organized in the office, where liquor was partaken. A report regarding this incident too was directed to be submitted by the petitioner.

5. Immediately upon receipt of this information, the petitioner identified the e