# Dhirendra Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 522
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18084 of 2022
- **Bench:** J. J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhirendra-kumar-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52137
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Dismissal from Service -
Post of Peon - Disciplinary proceeding -
Charges may likely to lead imposition of a
major penalty - Burden of proof, on whom
lie - Held, it is the burden of the
Establishment to prove the charge/charges
by leading evidence in the first instance,
both documentary and oral, before an
Inquiry formally convened through a
Presenting Officer. (Para 28)

B. Service law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Principle of natural justice - Applicability -
Evidence considered by the inquiry officer
were not put to the petitioner's notice -
Effect - Held, all the technical evidence,
that the Disciplinary Authority and the
Inquiry Committee took into consideration,
was not brought to the petitioner's notice
with opportunity to him to rebut the same.
In the absence of all this being done the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority and
the Appellate Authority are utterly vitiated
for violation of principles of natural justice
that have led to demonstrable prejudice to
the petitioner. The result would be that all
proceedings, beyond the chargesheet,
stand vitiated. (Para 34 and 36)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned Registrar General of this Court,
which shall be placed on record.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 522
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J. J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 18084 of 2022

Dhirendra Kumar Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kapil Dev Singh Rathore, Vikram Dev Singh
Rathore

Counsel for the Respondents:
Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C., Devesh Vikram

A. Service Law - Dismissal from Service -
Post of Peon - Disciplinary proceeding -
Charges may likely to lead imposition of a
major penalty - Burden of proof, on whom
lie - Held, it is the burden of the
Establishment to prove the charge/charges
by leading evidence in the first instance,
both documentary and oral, before an
Inquiry formally convened through a
Presenting Officer. (Para 28)

B. Service law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Principle of natural justice - Applicability -
Evidence considered by the inquiry officer
were not put to the petitioner's notice -
Effect - Held, all the technical evidence,
that the Disciplinary Authority and the
Inquiry Committee took into consideration,
was not brought to the petitioner's notice
with opportunity to him to rebut the same.
In the absence of all this being done the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority and
the Appellate Authority are utterly vitiated
for violation of principles of natural justice
that have led to demonstrable prejudice to
the petitioner. The result would be that all
proceedings, beyond the chargesheet,
stand vitiated. (Para 34 and 36)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. & ors.Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010)
2 SCC 772

2. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punj. National Bank & ors.;
(2009) 2 SCC 570

3. St. of Uttaranchal & ors.Vs Kharak Singh;
(2008) 8 SCC 236

4. St. of UP & anr. Vs Kishori Lal & anr.; 2018 (9)
ADJ 397 (DB) (LB)

5. Smt. Karuna Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P.; 2018 (9)
ADJ 107 (DB) (LB)

6. St. of UP Vs Aditya Prasad Srivastava & anr.;
2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against
an order of the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow (for
short, 'the Corporation') dated 23.07.2021,
dismissing the petitioner from service,
besides directing recovery, and the appellate
order of the Corporation Board dated
18.02.2022, dismissing the petitioner's
appeal arising out of the order passed by the
Chairman aforesaid.

2. The petitioner was appointed a
Peon with the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State
Electricity
Board
on
11.04.1997.
Subsequently, upon establishment of the
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited
and its subsidiary Distribution Companies,
including the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, the Uttar Pradesh State
Electricity Board was dissolved. The
5 All. Dhirendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
523
petitioner and other employees of the Board
were transferred to the Corporation. The
petitioner was posted with Purvanchal
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Varanasi
(hereinafter, referred to as the Distribution
Corporation). The Corporation, considering
the petitioner's unblemished service record,
granted him promotion to the post of an
Office Attendant. He was serving on the said
post until the date of the impugned order.

3. In the year 2017, a Human Rights
Organization, called Teesri Ankh through its
founder, one Shailendra Kumar Mishra, laid
complaints to the Distribution Corporation
regarding incorrect revision/correction of
electricity bills of consumers. Upon receipt
of the said complaint, the Director (P&A) of
the
Corporation,
vide
order
dated
21.05.2017, constituted a three member
Inquiry Committee to hold a preliminary
inquiry into the veracity of the allegations.
The three member Committee probed the
matter
and
submitted
reports
dated
17.11.2017 and 01.06.2018 to the Director
(P&A), last mentioned. Upon receipt of the
reports, the Director (P&A), vide a letter
dated 17.09.2018, transferred the matter to
himself for the purpose of instituting
disciplinary proceedings against the officer
and employees, including the petitioner, as
indicated in the letter. Subsequently, a
charge-sheet dated 22.04.2019 was issued to
the petitioner by a two member Inquiry
Committee comprising the Chief Engineer
and the Accountant of the Corporation.

4. A perusal of the charge-sheet
shows that though it carries a solitary charge
but, in fact, it relates to seventy different
consumers
about
whom
there
were
allegations regarding irregular proceedings
to rectify their electricity bills and electricity
disconnections,
without
following
the
guidelines of the Corporation as well as
ignoring the provisions of the Electricity
Supply Code, 2005 in order to give undue
benefit to the consumers, causing wrongful
loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to
himself. The evidence cited in support of the
charge are sixteen complaints by Shailendra
Kumar Mishra, founder General Secretary
of Teesri Ankh, the Human Rights
Organization, Gorakhpur and a letter of the
Director of the Distribution Corporation
dated 17.09.2018. In answer to the chargesheet dated 22.04.2019, issued to the
petitioner, he submitted a reply dated
19.06.2019.

5. It is the petitioner's case that no
formal notice regarding fixation of a date for
inquiry was given to the petitioner but the
petitioner was informally informed by the
Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution
Division of the Distribution Corporation
about the date of hearing. The petitioner
appeared before the Inquiry Committee
which recorded the petitioner's statement. It
is, particularly, pleaded in paragraph no. 18
of the writ petition that the Inquiry
Committee did not inform the petitioner
about any other proceedings nor the date
was fixed by the Inquiry Committee, except
the last mentioned date, where the statement
of the petitioner alone was recorded.

6. It is averred in paragraph no. 19
that except recording the petitioner's
statement, no evidence whatsoever was led
before the Inquiry Committee by anybody.
In paragraph no. 22 it was averred that the
testimony of Shailendra Kumar Mishra,
Naveen
Kumar
Srivastava
and
S.P.
Varshney was never recorded by the Inquiry
Committee during the inquiry. Further, the
Inquiry Committee did not give opportunity
to cross-examine witnesses. The Inquiry
Committee submitted their report to the
Corporation. It is averred by the petitioner in
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
paragraph no. 23 that the Corporation, by
their order dated 27.07.2020, remitted the
matter to the Inquiry Committee.

7. It is the petitioner's case in
paragraph no. 24 that after the earlier report
by the Inquiry Committee was remitted for
consideration by the Corporation by their
order of 27.07.2020, no further inquiry was
held by the two member Committee. The
Inquiry Committee submitted a fresh report
dated 05.09.2020.

8. In the inquiry report, that was
submitted, as already noticed, in the garb of
a solitary charge, there are seventy distinct
charges
relating
to
seventy
different
consumers.
The
Inquiry
Committee,
therefore, in their conclusion gave a finding
differently in relation to the different
consumers mentioned at serial no. 1 to 70 of
the charge. The findings of the Inquiry
Committee read:

क० िं० दबल िंशोधन
की दस्थदत
आरोप िंख्या-01

1.

दबल िंशोधन
दनमानु ार है।

कम िं0-07, 08 09, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20,
21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29,
32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38,
42, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55,
58, 60, 61, 63, 67, 69 एविं
70
2.

दबल िंशोधन
िुदटपूणव है।

कम िं0-02 04 05, 06, 10,
22, 24, 28, 30, 31, 36,
39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 50,
52, 59 एविं 66
3.
दबल िंशोधन
में
आिंदशक
िुदट िदशवत है।
कॅम िं0-17 एविं 68

4.

आरोदपत
 ेवक
 े
 िंबिंदधत नहीं
है।
कम िं0-01, 03, 11, 45,
46, 47, 48, 56, 57, 62,
64 एविं 65

 िंिदभवत प्रकरण में कुल 70 दबल िंशोधन / पी०डी०
प्रकरणों की जााँच की गयी दज में े 12 नग प्रकरण (उपरोक्त तादलका
में अिंदकत) आरोदपत ेवक े िंबिंदधत नहीं पाये गये, शेि 58 नग
प्रकरणों में े 36 प्रकरणों में दबल िंशोधन दनयमतः पाया गया तथा
कोई भी िुदट िदशवत नहीं है। शेि 22 दबल िंशोधनों के प्रकरणों में
िुदट/आिंदशक िुदट िदशवत है। उक्त 22 प्रकरणों में े 3 नग प्रकरणों
(कम िं० 5, 39 एविं 40) में कॉरपोरेशन को पह ाँचाई गयी दवत्तीय
क्षदत की धनरादश रू0 61,967.00 आगदणत होती है तथा शेि
19 नग प्रकरणों में िंिदभवत कम िंख्या पर अिंदकत कारणों के दृदष्टगत
दवत्तीय क्षदत की गणना दकया जाना िंभव नहीं है।

कॉरपोरेशन
के
आिेश
 0-87-प्र० ु००1/पाकाली/2002-20-प्र० िं०/2000
दिनािंक
25.02.2000 के अनु ार दवद्युत बीजकों में िंशोधन दकये जाने
हेतु िंबदधत दबल क्लकव का प्राथदमक उत्तरिादयत्व, हायक
अदभयन्ता(रा०) एविं लेखाकार(रा०) का पयवेक्षणीय उत्तरिादयत्व
तथा अदधशा ी अदभयन्ता का प्रशा कीय उत्तरिादयत्व दनधावररत है।
अतः कॉरपोरेशन को पह ाँचाई गयी उपरोक्त दवत्तीय क्षदत हेतु िंबिंदधत
दबल दलदपक, हायक अदभयन्ता(रा०), लेखाकार(रा०) तथा
अदधशा ी अदभयन्ता (आरोदपत ेवक) उत्तरिायी है।

 ाथ ही यह भी अवगत कराना है दक प्रश्नगत दबल
 िंशोधन/स्थायी दवच्छेिन के अदधकािंश प्रकरणों को तत्कालीन
 हायक अदभयन्ता(रा०) द्वारा भी हस्ताक्षररत दकया गया है। दकन्तु
 िंिदभवत हायक अदभयन्ता (राजस्व) के दवरुद्ध अनुशा दनक
कायवाही का प्रकरण जााँच दमदत को िंिदभवत नहीं दकया गया है।

9. It is averred in paragraph no. 25
of the writ petition that, from 27.07.2020 to
04.09.2020, no inquiry whatsoever was
conducted by the two member Committee
nor the petitioner associated with the
proceedings in any manner. The Inquiry
Committee, without conducting any further
inquiry, submitted their report dated
05.09.2020.

10. After receipt of the inquiry
report dated 05.09.2020 on the 11th of
December, 2020, the Director (P&A) of the
Corporation issued directions to the Chief
Engineer (Distribution) of the Distribution
Corporation, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur
5 All. Dhirendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
525
to constitute a two member Committee to
conduct an inquiry with regard to the
revision of bills of twenty three consumers.

11. In compliance with the said
order dated 11.12.2020, the Chief Engineer
constituted
a
two
member
Inquiry
Committee, comprising one A.K. Singh,
Superintending Engineer, Electricity Works
Division, Gorakhpur and Manoj Kumar
Verma, Deputy Chief Accounts Officer,
Gorakhpur to conduct an inquiry into
revision of the specified bills of consumers.
This two member Committee submitted a
report, along with a letter dated 25.01.2021,
issued by the Superintending Engineer. The
aforesaid report was forwarded by the Chief
Engineer (Distribution) of the Distribution
Corporation to the Director (P&A) of the
Corporation vide letter dated 27.01.2021.

12. Still later, the Director (P&A)
sought a further report from the I.T. Cell of
the Corporation and did receive a report
from
them.
The
Chairman
of
the
Corporation, vide letter dated 31.03.2021,
enclosing a copy of the inquiry report dated
05.09.2020, submitted by the two member
Committee, and, also a copy of the
incorrect/partially incorrect electricity bills
together with a calculation sheet computing
the financial loss, required the petitioner to
show cause. This was the second show
cause. In response to the second show cause,
the petitioner submitted his objections of
June, 2021.

13. On 23.07.2021, the Chairman of
the Corporation passed the impugned order
dismissing the petitioner from service and
further imposing upon him the penalty of
recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,88,584/-. The
petitioner
preferred
an
appeal
dated
27.09.2021 to the Board of Directors
through the Chairman of the Corporation. It
is the petitioner's case that he submitted a
voluminous 350 pages of documents in
support of this appeal but that may not be
very relevant to the point on which the
decision of this matter turns. The Board of
Directors, by their order dated 18.02.2022,
rejected the petitioner's appeal and affirmed
the punishment awarded by the Chairman of
the Corporation.

14. Aggrieved by the order dated
23.07.2021, passed by the Chairman of the
Corporation and the appellate order made by
the Board of Directors dated 18.02.2022,
this writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

15. A counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the Corporation. When the matter
come up for admission on 08.12.2023, the
parties having exchanged affidavits, it was
admitted to hearing which proceeded forthwith.
Judgment was reserved.

16. Heard Mr. Kapil Dev Singh
Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing
for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, the contesting
respondents and Ms. Monika Arya, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing
for respondent no. 1.

17. It is argued by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner that on the strength of the
averments in paragraph no. 43 of the writ
petition that during the inquiry at no point of
time, any evidence was led on behalf of the
Establishment, documentary or oral, to establish
the charges. No witness was examined by the
Establishment to prove the charges or the
documents sought to be relied upon.

18. A perusal of the charge-sheet
shows that the documents relied upon are
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sixteen complaints by Shailendra Kumar
Mishra and a letter from the Director (P&A)
dated
17.09.2018.
Neither
of
these
documents have been substantiated in
evidence against the petitioner nor an effort
made to prove these documents by
examining the authors. It is urged that at
least the complainant, who has submitted the
sixteen complaints, ought to have been
examined as a witness at the inquiry.

19. It is further submitted that,
besides the sixteen complaints and the letter
of the Director (P&A), no other document
was relied upon by the respondents or
produced
during
the
inquiry.
It
is
specifically pointed out by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, with reference to
paragraph no. 46 of the writ petition, that
neither Shailendra Kumar Mishra nor the
three members of the Committee, doing the
preliminary inquiry, were examined as
witnesses before the Inquiry Committee.

20. It is emphasized that the inquiry
report, submitted by the two member
Committee, was initially submitted and
discarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide
order dated 27.07.2020 and the matter
remitted for further inquiry. After the matter
was remitted on 27.07.2020 the inquiry, that
was conducted between 27.07.2020 and
31.08.2020, leading to the inquiry report
dated 05.09.2020, did not at all associate the
petitioner with it. It is argued that no inquiry,
whatsoever, was held between 27.07.2020
and 04.09.2020 by the Inquiry Committee.

21. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the Disciplinary
Authority, if it thought fit to discard the
inquiry report originally submitted, ought to
have intimated the petitioner of the matter,
and, more than that, the Inquiry Committee,
upon resuming the inquiry, after the matter
was remitted, should have intimated the
petitioner about the further inquiry that was
being undertaken where the petitioner
should
have
been
called
and
the
Establishment required to prove the charges
in his presence by leading evidence, both
documentary and oral. This was not at all
done.

22. A serious exception is also
taken to the course of action where, after
receipt
of
the
inquiry
report
dated
05.09.2020, a fresh inquiry report was
invited in regard to twenty three cases of
objectionable billing, according to the
respondents' case.

23. It is also urged that there was
absolutely no reason after two inquiry
reports had been received, to call for a report
from the I.T. Cell of which there is no copy
available to the petitioner. Whatever the I.T.
Cell inquired, the petitioner was never
associated with it.

24. It is emphasized further that the
two member Committee subsequently asked
to look into the twenty three cases and the
I.T. Cell never associated the petitioner
though both put in their reports to the
Disciplinary Authority, on the foot of which
the impugned order has been passed.

25. In the counter affidavit, there is
an omnibus and a vague denial of the
averments very specifically taken in the writ
petition.

26. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava,
learned Counsel for the Corporation, points
out that the petitioner was given full
opportunity of personal hearing before the
Inquiry Committee on 12.09.2019. The
petitioner had also taken ten days' time to
file his supplementary reply. He never
5 All. Dhirendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
527
showed interest to examine/cross-examine
witnesses,
leading
to
the
inquiry
proceedings being completed.

27. It is also urged by Mr.
Srivastava that the petitioner did not dispute
the documents supplied to him or their
genuineness and cannot, therefore, say that
no witness was examined to prove the same.
The entire procedure, for holding a
disciplinary inquiry, was punctiliously
followed as the learned Counsel for the
Corporation would submit.

28. This Court, upon consideration
of the parties' case, is of opinion that the
respondents' stand cannot be accepted for
more than one reason. The foremost
requirement of a valid inquiry in any
disciplinary proceedings likely to lead to the
imposition of a major penalty is the salutary
principle that it is the burden of the
Establishment to prove the charge/charges
by leading evidence in the first instance,
both documentary and oral, before an
Inquiry formally convened through a
Presenting Officer.

29. It is also imperative that as part
of the evidence, witnesses on behalf of the
Establishment be examined in all matters
where a major penalty is likely to be
imposed. Someone has to introduce and
prove idle papers and turn them into
speaking documents. This is not a case
where the petitioner has admitted the
documents
by
endorsement
that
the
respondents have relied upon.

30. Another feature of the matter is
that the documents relied upon by the
Establishment are mere complaints of
misconduct alleged against the petitioner.
These are not documents that comprise
evidence aliunde. If for the purpose of
sustaining the charges, the respondents have
looked into some other documents from
their records, which have not been cited in
the charge-sheet, it is a serious infraction of
natural justice for that would amount to
consideration of evidence behind the
petitioner's back. To add to it is the feature
that
after
the
inquiry
report
dated
05.09.2020, a further inquiry report was
called by the Disciplinary Authority, which
was in regard to twenty three matters of
objectionable revision of bills. This report
was apparently submitted by another Inquiry
Committee on 25.01.2021. To add to it, the
Disciplinary Authority appears to have
sought information and report from the I.T.
Cell of the Corporation and also considered
the material provided by the I.T. Cell. All
this material was considered behind the
petitioner's back without bringing it to his
notice and providing him an opportunity to
rebut it.

31. It is also not apparent from the
reports of the Inquiry Committee, two in
number,
that
they
have
convened
themselves into a formal Inquiry tribunal
distancing
themselves
from
the
Establishment
and
required
the
Establishment to prove the charges by
leading evidence, both documentary and
oral (witnesses). It is imperative in a matter
involving the imposition of a major penalty
that the Inquiry Committee should distance
themselves from the Establishment, even if
otherwise a part of it and act as impartial
arbiters.
They
must
require
the
Establishment to prove the charges by
leading documentary as well as oral
evidence in the first instance. The Inquiry
Committee here appear to have sat with the
presumption that the charges are proof of
themselves,
instead
of
requiring
the
Establishment, in the presence of the
petitioner, to lead their evidence through a
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Presenting
Officer,
both
oral
and
documentary.

32. The only fair procedure for an
inquiry, that would be countenanced by law,
was that the Establishment ought to have
been required to prove the charges against
the petitioner in relation to each of the
seventy and odd cases of irregular billing by
producing both documentary and oral
evidence through a Presenting Officer. The
witnesses examined should have been
offered
for
the
petitioner's
crossexamination. After this stage was over, the
petitioner was to be given opportunity to
likewise produce his evidence in defence,
both documentary and oral. If he chose to
lead oral evidence as well, the petitioner's
witnesses in defence too would be crossexamined by the Establishment. If the
petitioner did not lead any evidence it would
not absolve the Establishment from leading
evidence to prove the charges before the
Inquiry Committee. We do not think that the
Inquiry
Committee
ever
distanced
themselves from their loyalties to the
Establishment and always understood the
charges to be sponsored by themselves.
They regarded the charges proved to begin
with or at least prima facie and expected the
petitioner to dispel them. This is not the
procedure
by
which
charges
in
a
departmental
inquiry,
involving
the
imposition of a major penalty, can be proved
much less sustained. In this connection,
reference may be made in support of the the
salutary principle mentioned to the decision
of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha
(2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v.
Punjab National Bank and others (2009)
2 SCC 570, State of Uttaranchal and
others v. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236
and the Bench decisions of this Court in
State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal
and another 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB),
Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P. 2018
(9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) and State of U.P.
v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another
2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).

33. This case has more than just
these issues about the failure of the
Establishment to prove the charges in the
manner they have to be in a case involving
the imposition of a major penalty. The
reason is, we think that here is a case, where
the Disciplinary Authority has looked into
more than one inquiry report and also a
report from the I.T. Cell. The evidence, cited
in support of the charge, is hardly any
evidence. It is just a bunch of complaints by
a man called Shailendra Kumar Mishra
representing some self-styled Human Rights
Organization called 'Teesri Ankh'. The
complaints can hardly be regarded as
documents in proof of seventy different
cases of incorrect or flawed revision of bills
of
consumers.
These
charges
or
irregularities can be substantiated on the
basis of documents and oral evidence
forthcoming from the Establishment of the
Corporation. That kind of evidence, except
for a letter written by the Director (P&A), is
simply not mentioned in the charge-sheet.

34. The discussion on charges by
the Inquiry Committee shows that they have
considered evidence in intricate details
about billing et cetera which apparently has
never been put or brought to the petitioner's
notice during the inquiry. It has been
considered by the Inquiry Committee and by
the
Disciplinary
Authority
absolutely
behind the petitioner's back. Also, the
Disciplinary Authority has relied upon
another inquiry report dated 31.03.2021 but
the second show cause, that was given to the
petitioner, carries with it only one report,
that is to say, the first report of the Inquiry
5 All. Dhirendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
529
Committee dated 05.09.2020, not the other
report dated 31.03.2021.

35. It is also true that some
information was also sought from the I.T.
Cell of the Corporation. Unless a categorical
case was taken in the counter affidavit that
the report of the I.T. Cell was not at all taken
into consideration or the fact mentioned in
the impugned order explicitly, it has to be
presumed that the later report by the other
Inquiry Committee, dated 31.03.2021, and,
also some reports by the I.T. Cell, were
considered by the respondents in arriving at
their conclusions. Logically as well, given
the intricate and technical nature of the
charges, it is most likely that all kinds of
evidence of technical detail would have
been
considered
by
the
Disciplinary
Authority, a fact also reflected from the
orders impugned. But, the issue is: if this
evidence,
before
being
taken
into
consideration, was put to the petitioner
during the inquiry in which he participated,
in whatever manner he was allowed.

36. We do not think that all the
technical evidence, that the Disciplinary
Authority and the Inquiry Committee took
into consideration, was brought to the
petitioner's notice with opportunity to him to
rebut the same. In the absence of all this
being done the findings of the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority are
utterly vitiated for violation of principles of
natural justice that have led to demonstrable
prejudice to the petitioner. The result would
be that all proceedings, beyond the chargesheet, stand vitiated and it would remain
open to the respondents to proceed against
the petitioner de novo from the stage of the
charge-sheet.

37. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the
Chairman of the Corporation and the
appellate order dated 18.02.2022 passed by
the Corporation Board are hereby quashed.
The petitioner shall be reinstated in service
forthwith and paid his current salary
regularly. The respondents shall be free to
pursue fresh proceedings against the
petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet,
bearing in mind the guidance in this
judgment. If the respondents elect to pursue
fresh proceedings, arrears of emoluments
for the period of time that the petitioner has
remained out of employment shall not be
payable immediately. These shall abide by
the event in the disciplinary proceedings. If
the respondents do not elect to pursue fresh
proceedings against the petitioner, he will be
entitled to 50% of his emoluments for the
period of time that he has remained out of
employment. It is further ordered that in
case the respondents elect to pursue fresh
proceedings, it would be open to the
respondents to place the petitioner under
suspension
pending
disciplinary
proceedings, which shall then be expedited
and concluded early, wherein the petitioner
shall cooperate. It is further ordered that in
the event, the petitioner is placed under
suspension
by
the
respondents,
the
respondents shall be obliged to ensure
prompt and regular payment of subsistence
allowance to the petitioner during the period
of suspension, which they will pay without
asking the petitioner to produce a nonalternative engagement certificate.

39. There shall be no order as to
costs.

40.

Let
this
judgment
be
communicated to the Chairman, Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corporation
Limited,
Lucknow and the Managing Director, Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corporation
Limited,
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lucknow through the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Lucknow by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 530
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ A No. 23843 of 2018

Sanjay Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Adarsh Singh, Indra Raj Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C., Mrigraj Singh

A. Service Law - Appointment - Post of
Assistant Teacher - Selection was made
after
obtaining
prior
approval
and
appointment was also accorded approval -
Salary was stopped - Validity challenged -
Neither approval was ever recalled nor the
petitioner
was
ever
suspended
or
terminated - No material to proof collusion
with St. authorities in any manipulation
was produced - Effect - Held, the
appointment of the petitioners cannot be
said to be illegal as after due selection
interviews were made in presence of the
nominee of the District Basic Education
Officer. Thereafter, approval was granted
on 21.8.2003 after duly being satisfied by
the District Basic Education Officer - The
salary
of
the
petitioners
cannot
be
withheld or stopped unless petitioners are
suspended or dismissed from service -
High Court issued mandamus to pay
arrears of salary and allow all the
consequential benefits. (Para 19, 26, 31, 32
and 46)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2024 AIR (SC) 260

2. Civil Appeal No. 3904 of 2013; Nahar Singh &
ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 14.07.2017

3. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 7348 of
2024; Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Basti & anr.
Vs Uday Pratap Singh & ors. decided on
16.04.2024

4. Special Appeal (Defective) No. 870 of 2023;
Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Basti & anr. Vs
Uday Pratap Singh & ors. decided on 19.01.2024

5. Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-7635 of 2022; Professor
(Dr.) Srejith P.S. Vs Dr. Rajasree M.S. & ors.
decided on 21.10.2022

6. St. of Odisha & ors. Vs Sulekh Chandra
Pradhan etc.; 2022 LiveLaw ( SC) 393

7. Misc. Application Diary No. 4303/2024; Devesh
Sharma Vs U.O.I.decided on 08.04.2024

8. Special Appeal (Devective) No. 890 of 2023;
St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Ram Avtar Singh & ors.
decided on 09.01.2024

9. Civil Appeal No. .. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP
(C) Nos. 22241-42 of 2016; Vinod Kumar & ors.
Vs U.O.I.decided on 30.01.2024

10. Sandeep Kumar Vs G.B. Pant Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri; 2024 0
Supreme (SC) 346

11. C/M Dadaur Inter College, Dadaur, Rae
Bareilly Vs District Inspector of Schools, Rae
Bareily & ors.; 1985 UPLBEC 1378

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Adarsh Singh, learned
counsel for he petitioners and Sri Abhishek
Srivastava, learned Chief standing counsel
for the State-respondents.