Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J
Parmeshwar Gorain – Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others – Respondent
Writ A No.4736 of 2024
Decided on : 02-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Manu Mishra
For the Respondent: Abhishek Srivastava, K.K. Rao

In disciplinary proceedings involving major penalties, the establishment must produce evidence and witnesses to substantiate charges; failure to do so renders the inquiry invalid.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh State Power Corporation Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 - Violation of principles of natural justice - Disciplinary proceedings against a Junior Engineer for alleged bribery - Inquiry found flawed due to lack of evidence and witnesses - Court emphasized necessity of evidence in major penalty inquiries. (Paras 11, 14, 20, 21)

(B) Principles of departmental inquiry - An inquiry must require the establishment to produce evidence and witnesses to prove charges against the employee - The burden of proof lies with the establishment, not the employee. (Paras 14, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was dismissed after being accused of demanding a bribe for installing a transformer. The inquiry was conducted without producing any witnesses or evidence to substantiate the charges.

Findings of Court:
The court found the inquiry flawed, quashing the dismissal order and allowing reinstatement.

Issues: Whether the inquiry committee followed due procedure and produced necessary evidence to substantiate the charges against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of witnesses and failure to produce evidence rendered the inquiry invalid, reinforcing the requirement for evidence in disciplinary proceedings.

Result: The impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is quashed; the petitioner is to be reinstated.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. Parties have exchanged affidavits.

2. The writ petition is taken up for hearing forthwith.

3. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow (for short, 'the Corporation') dated 05.03.2024, dismissing the petitioner from service after holding disciplinary proceedings.

4. The petitioner was appointed a Junior Engineer with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation after selection by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Service Commission. He was appointed as such and placed on probation on 28.04.2014. The petitioner was initially posted at Banda. Upon completion of the period of probation, the petitioner was confirmed in service. It is the petitioner's case that by an office order dated 28.04.2015, he was given additional charge of two Substations, apart from two other Substations, that were already under his charge. This happened on account of promotion of one Arvind Kumar Gautam to the position of an Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was, therefore, holding charge of four Substations, located in a radius of 40 kilometers. This caused the petitioner great hardship and strain in the performance of his duties.

5. One Kuldeep Singh, the son of a consumer and Smt. Sudha Singh wife of Balram Singh, moved an application dated 15.09.2015, requesting for the replacement of the 16 KVA transformer by a 25 KVA one. This change was sought because of malfunctioning of the installed transformer of 16 KVA, which could not bear the necessary electricity load. The application last mentioned was received in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Banda on 15.09.2015. After completion of necessary formalities, it was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned for necessary action on 22.09.2015. On the following day i.e. 23.09.2015, a letter dated 15.09.2015 was received in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The next event fell on 26.09.2015, when the application was forwarded to the petitioner, who was the Junior Engineer, posted at the substation concerned. Upon receipt of the letter dated 26.09.2015, the petitioner proceeded to draw up an estimate, as required for the purpose of installation of a 25 KVA transformer in place of the existing 16 KVA.

6. The petitioner asserts that neither the consumer in the application dated 15.09.2015 nor the officials of the Department ever intimated the petitioner of the fact that on an earlier occasion, the same consumer had got sanctioned a 25 KVA transformer in her name way back on 09.10.2007, a fact evident from from a certificate dated 09.10.2007, issued for the purpose. In the next leg of proceedings, after drawing up of the estimate and sanction, a 16 KVA transformer in place of the sanctioned 25 KVA was installed on account of the fact that a 25 KVA transformer was not available in the Electricity Store Centre at Banda. An application dated 26.09.2015 was moved by the consumer, Kuldeep Singh before the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jhansi, requesting legal action against the petitioner on the allegation of demanding illegal gratification for the purpose of installing a 25 KVA transformer, without inquiring into the status of his application dated 15.09.2015, raising a demand for replacement of the whole transformer with a new 25 KVA.

7. It is the petitioner's case that by time, a complaint was moved to the S.P., Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jhansi on 26.09.2015, the estimate for a 25 KVA was already drawn up by the petitioner and sent to the concerned SDO for installation of the device. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to demand illegal gratification for facilitating the installation of a 25 KVA transformer. The petitioner submits that the allegation was utterly mala fide. On 29.09.2015 while the petitioner was sitting at a tea-shop outside the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Banda, Kuldeep Singh appro