Disciplinary inquiries must adhere to procedural safeguards, including the presentation of evidence, especially in cases involving major penalties.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1.This writ petition is directed against an order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the Managing Director, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Agra, punishing the petitioner with the withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and directing recovery of a sum of Rs.8,00,307 as miscellaneous advance, after holding disciplinary proceedings. The said order has been upheld in appeal by the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow vide order dated 11.11.2024, dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay.

2. The petitioner is an Executive Engineer in the employ of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow [‘Corporation’] For the present, he is for short serving an an Executive Engineer since the 2^nd July, 2024 at the Electricity Urban Distribution Division, Daliganj, Lucknow Electricity Supply Administration, Trans Gomati, Lucknow.

3. The proceedings giving rise to the writ petition relate to the period of time when the petitioner was posted as the Executive Engineer at Mauranipur, District Jhansi under the immediate control of the Managing Director, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Agra. [‘Distribution Corporation’ for short]. He was served with a charge-sheet dated Nil along with a covering letter dated 23.07.2019 by the Inquiry Officer heading the Inquiry Committee. The charge-sheet carried four charges, to which, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 31.10.2019, denying the charges.

4. After receipt of the petitioner’s reply, it is the petitioner’s case that the Inquiry Committee proceeded against him contrary to the salutary principles governing inquiries, where a major penalty may be imposed, and submitted their report dated 06.11.2020 in violation of Regulation 7(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 [‘Regulations of 2020’ for short] holding the charges proved. The petitioner asserts that no witness was produced in support of the charges during hearing before the Inquiry Committee. It is emphasized that it is incumbent upon the Establishment to prove the charges, in the first instance, by producing evidence, in particular, witnesses, in all cases where a major penalty may be imposed. It is the petitioner’s further case that no date, time and place for holding the inquiry was fixed by the Inquiry Committee. Relevant averments regarding the aforesaid lapses in adhering to salutary procedure as also deviation from rules in matters involving the imposition of a major penalty are there in paragraph Nos. 19 to 21 and 62 of the writ petition.

5. The Inquiry Committee submitted their report dated 06.11.2020, holding the petitioner guilty, on the basis of which, a show-cause notice dated 29.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause on 20.02.2021. By the impugned order dated 26.11.2021, the Managing Director of the Distribution Corporation proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty, punishing him with the withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, besides ordering recovery of a sum of 8,00,307 on account of miscellaneous advance. The petitioner's departmental appeal to the Chairman of the Corporation was dismissed as time-barred vide order dated 11.11.2024 on ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, that is to say, 90 days.

6. Aggrieved, this petition has been instituted by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. This Court, on 29.11.2024, issued a notice of motion in terms of the following order :

By the impugned order passed by the Managing Director, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Agra the petitioner has been punished after disciplinary proceedings with recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,00,307/- and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.

The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no date, time and place of inquiry was fixed nor any witness examined in suppor