# Rahul Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 461
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 16977 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51823
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Censure - Withholding of
two increments with cumulative effect -
Charge of slackness of control over
subordinates and failure in taking firm
disciplinary action against the employees,
who
used
unparliamentary
language
against one another and indulging in
partaking liquor in the office - No
witnesses were produced on behalf of the
Corporation to prove the charges against
the petitioner - Effect - Held, nonadherence
to
the
salutary
principles
governing the conduct of a departmental
inquiry in matters involving the imposition
of
a
major
penalty
may
not
have
prejudiced the petitioner - A finding about
any of the charges could not have been
validly
recorded
by
the
Inquiry
Committee, without the Establishment
producing evidence, including witnesses.
(Para 6, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 17)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
(2024) 4 ILRA 461
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 16977 of 2023

Rahul Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhay Srivastava, Sri Abhay
Singh Tomar, Sri Adarsh Bhushan

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Censure - Withholding of
two increments with cumulative effect -
Charge of slackness of control over
subordinates and failure in taking firm
disciplinary action against the employees,
who
used
unparliamentary
language
against one another and indulging in
partaking liquor in the office - No
witnesses were produced on behalf of the
Corporation to prove the charges against
the petitioner - Effect - Held, nonadherence
to
the
salutary
principles
governing the conduct of a departmental
inquiry in matters involving the imposition
of
a
major
penalty
may
not
have
prejudiced the petitioner - A finding about
any of the charges could not have been
validly
recorded
by
the
Inquiry
Committee, without the Establishment
producing evidence, including witnesses.
(Para 6, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 17)

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 P.N.B.& ors.; (2009) 2
SCC 570

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

4. St. of U.P. & 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 U.P. Vs Aditya Prasad Srivastava &
anr.; 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB)(LB)

(Delivered by 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, Lucknow1, 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 SubDivisional 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, Varanasi2, directing the
petitioner, who then held charge as the
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
employees responsible for the violation as
one Santosh Shukla, an Office Assistant
and Jai Prakash, the Divisional Accountant.
The petitioner submitted his report in the
matter to the Superintending Engineer. In
the report submitted by the petitioner, it is
indicated that he had warned the employees
concerned, but no disciplinary action could
be taken by him, inasmuch as jurisdiction,
according
to
Departmental
Circular/Instructions dated 08.08.2018 in
this regard, vested in the Managing
Director or the Chief Engineer. There is a
reference made by the petitioner to a
Circular
dated
02.01.2019,
which
empowers the Chief Engineer to award
minor punishment, perhaps to certain
classes of employees. It is, therefore, the
4 All. Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
petitioner's case that his responsibility in
the matter was to post the authorities with
whatever had transpired and it does not lie
within his jurisdiction to take any further
action against any employee, exercising
disciplinary powers.

6. The petitioner was served with a
charge-sheet dated 14.09.2022, carrying
two charges. The first charge is about the
incident dated 27.07.2021 in the office of
the Executive Engineer, Electricity Stores
Division, Prayagraj and the other about the
incident dated 06.10.2021, both related to
misconduct by employees posted in the
office. The substance of the first charge is
that the petitioner was directed by the
Chief Engineer, vide his order dated
30.07.2021, to hold a preliminary inquiry
in the matter and submit a report, but the
petitioner, by his report dated 18.08.2021,
submitted to the Chief Engineer, not only
reported on the incident dated 30.07.2021,
the happening of which he affirmed, but
instead of making recommendations for
strict disciplinary action to be taken
against the two employees, closed the
matter himself by administering them a
severe warning. The charge further says
that in the absence of any severe action
being taken against the two employees on
06.10.2021, the two of them resorted to
partaking liquor in the office, which was
captured on a video and made viral on the
social media, harming the Corporation's
reputation. The petitioner was, therefore,
charged with slackness of control over his
subordinates by failing to take firm
disciplinary action in the matter of
employees
using
unparliamentary
language against one another, permitting a
bad tradition and culture to flourish in the
office, leading to the Corporation's image
being tarnished, besides neglecting to
perform his duties.

7. The other charge relates to the
incident
dated
06.10.2021
and
the
gravamen of this charge is that after the
incident about Jai Prakash, the former
Divisional Accountant went viral on the
social media, the Inquiry Officer appointed
by the Distribution Corporation to inquire
in the matter, was confronted by Jai
Prakash, with his Annual Confidential
Report3 for the year 2021-21 awarded by
the petitioner, rating him an outstanding
employee. The petitioner was, therefore,
charged with the misconduct of awarding
an outstanding entry to the employee
concerned, ignoring his moral values and
his behaviour with subordinates, and
further, for the act of disclosing the
contents of the ACR to the employee
concerned, breaching confidentiality.

8. The petitioner says that an inquiry
commenced against him and he was given
opportunity
for
a
personal
hearing,
regarding which, a notice dated 26.03.2022
was issued to him. The petitioner further
says that he sought time in the matter,
which was granted to him by an order dated
12.04.2022. The petitioner submitted his
reply to the charge-sheet on 13.04.2022. He
appeared
for
personal
hearing
on
19.04.2022 before the Inquiry Officer. An
Inquiry
Report
was
submitted
on
20.05.2022, holding the petitioner guilty on
the first charge in part, and finding the
second charge not proved at all. A showcause notice was issued to the petitioner on
16.06.2022, requiring him to submit his
reply. The petitioner answered the show
cause in terms of his reply dated
15.07.2022, again dispelling the charges. It
is the petitioner's case that he has been
exonerated on the second charge, because it
was found that he had never written the
ACR relating to Jai Prakash. He was
punished with the award of a censure and
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
withholding of two increments on the basis
of partial proof of the first charge about not
recommending appropriate action against
the
two
employees,
who
used
unparliamentary language in the office. It is
the petitioner's case that he held a
preliminary inquiry into the matter and at
his level, he gave them a severe warning
and making a report to the higher
authorities in the Distribution Corporation,
who could, on facts, reported to them,
initiate appropriate disciplinary action. It is
also the petitioner's case that he never
intended, by his report dated 18.08.2021, to
close the disciplinary matter. The petitioner
has specifically pleaded in paragraph No.
25 that his report dated 18.08.2021 has,
later on, been made basis by the Managing
Director of the Corporation to place the
Office Assistant, Santosh Shukla and the
Divisional Accountant, Jai Prakash, under
suspension, and later on, terminate their
services.

9. In the supplementary affidavit filed
on behalf of the petitioners, it is averred
that during the inquiry held, no witnesses
were produced on behalf of the Corporation
to prove the charges against the petitioner,
which is an imperative, by salutary
principle, in matters governing the award of
a major penalty. A counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2,
3 and 4, to which a rejoinder affidavit has
been filed. This petition was admitted to
hearing on 04.12.2023, which proceeded
forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

10. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel for
respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. Abhay
Singh Tomar, Advocate holding brief of
Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, learned Counsel for
respondent No. 5.

11. It is submitted by Mr. Prabhat
Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned orders passed
by the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority, as well as the Inquiry
Report, on which these are founded, are
vitiated, for reasons that the Inquiry
Committee held the first charge proved,
without the salutary procedure for the
Establishment to prove the charges, leading
to the imposition of a major penalty being,
at all, observed. It is pointed out that the
Inquiry Committee have not convened
themselves
properly
into
an
Inquiry
Tribunal and required the Establishment to
produce their evidence in support of the
charge through a Presenting Officer. It was
imperative,
according
to
the
learned
Counsel for the petitioner, in an inquiry
involving the imposition of a major
penalty, for the Establishment to produce
not only documentary evidence, but also
examining witnesses. In the absence of
documentary evidence led according to the
aforesaid principle, the Authorities could
not have relied upon the report to pass the
orders impugned. It is next submitted, with
much emphasis by learned Counsel for the
petitioner, that the punishment imposed, for
a part of the first charge that was proved, is
shockingly disproportionate, which this
Court must quash on that count alone.

12. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned
Counsel for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, on
the other hand, submits that the salutary
principle that in an inquiry leading to
imposition of a major penalty, it is
imperative for the Establishment to prove
the charge(s) by leading both documentary
and oral evidence, as well as examining
witnesses, may not apply in this case, for
the reason that the said principle is, after
all, a facet of procedural fairness. Here, Mr.
Srivastava submits that there is no
4 All. Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465
procedural unfairness involved, even if it is
assumed that the Establishment failed to
lead evidence in the manner necessary in a
departmental
inquiry,
involving
the
imposition of a major penalty, for reason
that all that has been found against the
petitioner is the act of exceeding his
jurisdiction and letting off the two
employees with a severe warning, a
jurisdiction he did not possess. The
petitioner does not dispute the contents of
his report dated 18.08.2021.

13. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
parties and perusing the record, this Court
finds that it is, no doubt true that the
Establishment have not, at all, produced
documentary or oral evidence in the
manner imperative in a departmental
inquiry, likely to lead to the imposition of a
major penalty. Also, a reading of the
Inquiry Report shows that the Inquiry
Committee comprising the Chief Engineer
and the Senior Accounts Officer have not
convened themselves into an Inquiry
Tribunal, distancing themselves from the
Establishment,
of
which
they
are
employees, and requiring the Establishment
to
prove
the
charges
by producing
evidence, both documentary and oral. The
Inquiry Committee seem to have sat in their
office, and amidst the routine of other
business, gleaned through the papers
produced along with the charge-sheet and
the petitioner's reply and recorded their
conclusions. This is certainly not the
manner in which a departmental inquiry
into a matter, where there is the likelihood
of imposition of a major penalty involved,
ought be held. The Inquiry Committee,
after all, in a matter involving the
imposition of a major penalty, must sit as
an impartial arbiter and start with a clean
slate. They must look at the charges with an
impartial eye, and not regarding the charges
as proof of themselves. The Establishment
must be required to produce evidence at a
properly convened hearing, even if the
delinquent does not appear, which must
include both documentary evidence as well
as witnesses to prove the charge(s). This
has not been done at all in the present case.

14. This Court thinks that there could
have been some force in Mr. Srivastava's
submissions, in the peculiar facts here, that
non-adherence to the salutary principles
governing the conduct of a departmental
inquiry in matters involving the imposition
of a major penalty may not have prejudiced
the petitioner. This line of reasoning
emanates from the fact that the Inquiry
Committee has held the petitioner guilty of
one part of the first charge, which says that
in disposing of the disciplinary matter
against the employees, instead of merely
making a report to his superiors, the
petitioner exceeded his jurisdiction. The
said finding is based on the petitioner's
report
dated
18.08.2021,
which
the
petitioner does not deny at all, and the
terms of it are explicit. If that was all, the
angle of procedural unfairness on account
of deviation from the salutary principles
governing the holding of a departmental
inquiry in a matter where the imposition of
a major penalty was involved, holding it to
be a case of no prejudice at all to the
petitioner, may not have vitiated the result.
But, the finding of the Inquiry Officer and
the Disciplinary Authority are just not
about the petitioner's transgressing his
jurisdiction in disposing of the disciplinary
matter by his report dated 18.08.2021,
which he was not permitted by law to do.
The remarks of the Inquiry Committee in
respect of the first charge, that has been
formally found proved, are far-reaching
and are just not limited to a transgression of
the petitioner's jurisdiction in disposing of
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
disciplinary
matter
against
two
employees with a warning. These read :

उक्त आख्या के अवलोकन से दसशथत
होता है सक आरोसपत सेवक द्वारा अपनी आख्या
में श्री जय प्रकाश यादव को बचाते हुए सिंदसभथत
घटना हेतु श्री आशुतोर् कुमार को उत्तरदायी
बताते हुए मात्र कड़ी चेतावनी का दण्ड सनगथत
करते हुए प्रकरण को रफा-दफा कर सदया गया,
जबसक उक्त घटना की सशकायत सवद्युत
कायाथलय सहायक सिंघ द्वारा आरोसपत सेवक के
सार्-सार् अन्य उच्चासिकाररयोिं एविं प्रबिंि
सनदेशक, पूवाथचल सवद्युत सवतरण सनगम सल० से
भी की गयी र्ी तर्ा आरोसपत सेवक के सिंत्रािंक
373 सदनािंक 28.07.2021 के अनुक्रम में उनके
अिीनस्र्ोिं द्वारा उक्त घटना की पुसष्ट भी की गयी
(५०पृ०सिं०-64 से 68)। सार् ही श्री आशुतोर्
कुमार, कायथकारी सहायक के सार् की गयी
अभिता एविं कायाथलय पररसर में मसदरापान
करने सिंबिंिी कदाचरण में भी उक्त दोनोिं
कासमथकोिं की सिंसलप्तता पाये जाने से खण्डीय
कायाथलय के कासमथकोिं द्वारा सदये गये बयान /
शपर् पत्र में अिंसकत तथ्ोिं की पुसष्ट होती है।
प्रार्समक जााँच में सवद्युत भण्डार खण्ड,
प्रयागराज के कायाथलय में शराब की एक ब्रान्ड
के ग्लास का प्रचलन आम/सामान्य पाया गया।
यहााँ तक सक प्रार्समक जााँच असिकारी को पानी
भी शराब की ब्रान्ड के ग्लास में ही परोसा गया।
सार् ही प्रार्समक जााँच में, सिंदसभथत वीसडयोिं
वायरल होने के पश्चात् सवद्युत भण्डार खण्ड,
प्रयागराज के कायाथलय में शराब की बोतलोिं के
जखीरे की सफाई आरोसपत सेवक द्वारा स्विंय
अपने सनदेशन में कराये जाने का तथ् भी
अिंसकत है। अतः तकथ सक श्री जय प्रकाश एविं श्री
सिंतोर् कुमार के आचरण एविं कायाथलय पररसर
में मसदरापान की जानकारी खण्डीय कायाथलय
के समस्त कासमथकोिं को र्ी तर्ा उनमें भय का
माहौल र्ा, सकन्तु आरोसपत सेवक को नहीिं र्ी,
व्यबहाररक एविं मानने योग्य नहीिं है।

आरोसपत सेवक के, कायाथलय में
प्रर्म बार अमयाथसदत आचरण एविं व्यवहार में
सुिार करने के उद्देश्य से चेतावनी का दण्ड ही
उपयुक्त होने सिंबिंिी असभकर्न से जााँच ससमसत
सहमत नहीिं है तर्ा जााँच ससमसत का मत है सक
सकसी भी घटना/असनयसमतता हेतु दण्ड का
सनिाथरण असनयसमतता के प्रर्म बार होने अर्वा
पुनरावृसत्त होने पर सनभथर नहीिं करता है, असपतु
दण्ड का सनिाथरण असनयसमतता की गिंभीरता से
प्रभासवत होता है। सार् ही असभलेखीय साक्ष्ोिं के
अभाव में आरोसपत सेवक के प्रर्म बार
असनयसमतता घसटत होने के तथ् की पुसष्ट नहीिं
होती है, जबसक आरोसपत सेवक के अिीनस्र्ोिं
द्वारा प्रस्तुत पत्रोिं एविं शपर् पत्रोिं के (प०पृ०सिं०69 से 80) अवलोकन से स्पष्ट दसशथत है सक श्री
जय प्रकाश, लेखाकार एविं श्री सिंतोर् कुमार
शुक्ला, कायथकारी सहायक द्वारा कायाथलय में ही
मीट बनवाकर खुले आम शराब एविं मीट का
सेवन सकया जाता र्ा तर्ा कायाथलय के कासमथकोिं
के सार् अभि व्यवहार एविं गाली-गलौज की
जाती र्ी, सजसके कारण कमथचाररयोिं में भय का
महौल व्याप्त र्ा।

अतः आरोसपत सेवक का दासयत्व र्ा
सक सिंदसभथत घटना को गिंभीरता से लेते हुए
उसकी सनष्पक्ष जााँच करते हुए प्रकरण से
सम्बखन्धत सभी वास्तसवक तथ्ोिं में दोर्ी
कासमथकोिं के सक्षम दण्डासिकारी को अवगत
कराते हुए उनसे अपेसक्षत अनुशासनात्मक
कायथवाही सकये जाने का अनुरोि करते, सकन्तु
आरोसपत सेवक द्वारा उक्त के सवपरीत कायथ
करते हुए दोर्ी कासमथकोिं के सिंदभथ में सक्षम
दण्डासिकारी न होने के बावजूद कड़ी चेतावनी
का दण्ड सनगथत करते हुए प्रकरण को समाप्त
कर सदया गया। आरोसपत सेवक द्वारा स्पष्ट रूप
से अपने असिकारोिं का असतक्रमण सकया गया,
सकन्तु आरोसपत सेवक द्वारा दोर्ी कासमथकोिं के
सवरूद्ध कठोर अनुशासनात्मक कायथवाही की
सिंस्तुसत सकया जाना बािंसछत होने सम्बन्धी तथ् से
जााँच ससमसत सहमत नहीिं है, क्योिंसक ज च
4 All. Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
467
ससमसत का मत है सक सकसी भी कासमथक को
दण्ड देने का असिकार उसके सनयुखक्त
असिकारी का होता है तर्ा कासमथक को सकस
असनयसमतता हेतु क्या दण्ड सदया जाना है, इसके
सनिाथरण का असिकार भी सनयुखक्त असिकारी में
ही सनसहत होता है। सिंदसभथत प्रकरण में दोर्ी पाये
गये लेखाकार के सनयुखक्त असिकारी सनदेशक
(का० प्र० एविं प्रशा०), पू०सव०सव०सन०सलए
वाराणसी एविं कायथकारी सहायक के सनयुखक्त
असिकारी
सिंबिंसित
मण्डल
के
अिीक्षण
असभयन्ता है। ऐसी खस्र्सत में आरोसपत सेवक का
दासयत्व र्ा सक सिंबिंसित तथ्ोिं से दोर्ी कासमथकोिं
के उपरोक्त अिंसकत सतयुखक्त असिकारी को
अवगत कराते हुए अनुशासनात्मक कायथवाही
का अनुरोि करते, सकन्तु आरोसपत सेवक द्वारा
स्वयिं अपने स्तर से दण्डादेश सनगथत करते हुए
प्रकरण को रफा-दफा कर सदया गया। सार् ही
आरोसपत सेवक के उच्चासिकाररयोिं, सजन्ें
आरोसपत सेवक द्वारा पत्रािंक 413 सदनािंक
18.08.2021 (प० पृ०च्छे-09) प्रेसर्त / अिसाररत
सकया गया, का भी दासयत्व र्ा सक सिंज्ञासनत होने
पर आरोसपत सेवक को सनयमानुसार कायथवाही
करने हेतु सनदेसशत करते।

अतः आरोसपत सेवक को दोर्ी
कासमथकोिं के सवरूद्ध कठोर अनुशासनात्मक
कायथवाही की सिंस्तुसत न करने हेतु दोर्ी नहीिं
माना जा सकृती, सकन्तु अपने असिकारोिं का
असतक्रमण करते हुए प्रकरण को रफा-दफा
करने हेतु आरोसपत सेवक दोर्ी है।
(emphasis by Court)

15. A reading of the above remarks
would show that the petitioner was held
guilty of maintaining slack control over his
office, where there was indiscipline rife
amongst employees, who were partaking
liquor in the office. There are also remarks
to the effect that the two employees
concerned, that is to say, Jai Prakash and
Santosh Shukla, had some kind of a fear
struck amongst the other employees, on
account of which, they were able to carry
on these activities in the office. It is on the
basis of these remarks that the Disciplinary
Authority,
the
Chairman
of
the
Corporation, while holding the petitioner
guilty of a part of the first charge, and
choosing the punishment to impose, has
recorded his findings in the following
words :

मेरे द्वारा श्री राहुल ससिंह (2014035),
तत्कालीन असिशासी असभयन्ता, सवद्युत भण्डार
खण्ड प्रयागराज के अभ्यावेदन का पत्रावली में
उपलब्ध सिंगत असभलेखोिं के सार् अध्ययन सकया
गया। श्री ससिंह के अपने कायाथलय के कासमथकोिं
पर सनयिंत्रण नहीिं सकये जाने के कारण उनके
अिीनस्र्
कायाथलय
के
कासमथकोिं
में
अनुशासनहीनता की खस्र्सत हुयी तर्ा कायाथलय
में मसदरा सेवन करने का कुकृत्य करने का
दुत्साहस उत्पन्न हुआ। जााँच असिकारी की
आख्या के अनुसार उक्त कासमथकोिं के द्वारा
सनयसमत रूप से कायाथलय में मसदरा पान सकया
जा रहा र्ा तर्ा श्री राहुल के यह सिंज्ञान में होते
हुए भी उन्ोिंने इस प्रवृसत्त पर सनयिंत्रण रखने की
प्रभावी कायथवाही नहीिं की गयी, सजससे ऐची
घटना घसटत हुई एविं कारपोरेशन की छसव भी
िूसमल हुई। उनके अभ्यावेदन में ऐसा कोई तथ्
नही पाया जा रहा है जो उनपर आिंसशक ससद्ध
पाये गये आरोप में सशसर्लता प्रदान कर सके।
वसणथत
पररखस्र्सतयोिं
में
श्री
राहुल
ससिंह
(2014035), तत्कालीन असिशासी असभयन्ता पर
उ०प्र० पावर कारपोरेशन सलसमटेड कासमथक
(अनुशासन एविं अपील) सवसनयमावली, 2020 के
सनयम 3 में सवसनथसदष्ट दीघथ शाखस्त प्रदान सकये
जाने की खस्र्सत पा रहा हाँ।
(emphasis by Court)

16. The Disciplinary Authority has
concluded that the petitioner has slack
control over his subordinates, who were
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regularly indulging in partaking liquor in
the office premises, a fact that was within
the
petitioner's
cognizance.
The
Disciplinary Authority has observed that
the petitioner could not contain these
tendencies or initiate action to control the
employees working under him, leading to
an event which portrayed the Corporation
in poor light.

17. Now, the charge is just not about
committing a technical folly in disposing of
the complaint against the two employees
concerned by the petitioner at his level,
regarding which, he had no jurisdiction. It
is more about the slackness of control,
which the petitioner has been held
generally to have had over his subordinates
in the office, who were, over a period of
time, indulging in the misconduct of
partaking liquor during office hours and
striking fear amongst their colleagues, who
would not speak out. If these are matters
which have entered the consideration of the
Inquiry
Committee,
the
Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority, a
finding about any of them could not have
been validly recorded by the Inquiry
Committee, without the Establishment
producing evidence, including witnesses, to
prove the facts of slackness of control over
subordinates on the petitioner's part, the
employees consuming liquor and indulging
in general indiscipline in the office over a
long period of time by striking fear
amongst
their
colleagues.
These
are
matters,
regarding
which,
salutary
principles governing the holding of a
departmental inquiry, in the manner that the
Establishment have to first prove the
charges by formally producing evidence,
both documentary and oral, that is to say,
witnesses, has to be adhered to. The Inquiry
Committee could just not look at the
petitioner's report dated 18.08.2021 and
draw all these inferences. For the same
reason, the Chairman of the Corporation,
the Disciplinary Authority, could not have
drawn the inferences that he did, on the
foot of an Inquiry Report written by a
Committee that did not adhere to the
salutary
procedure
of
requiring
the
Establishment to prove the charges by
producing documentary as well as oral
evidence. The law, that in a matter leading
to award of a major penalty, it is the
obligation of the Establishment to prove the
charge(s) in the first instance, by producing
documentary evidence as well as witnesses,
is far too well settled to brook doubt. In this
connection, reference may be made to the
guidance of the Supreme Court in State of
Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj
Kumar Sinha4, Roop Singh Negi v.
Punjab National Bank and others5, State
of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak
Singh6 and the Bench decisions of this
Court in State of U.P. and another v.
Kishori Lal and another7, Smt. Karuna
Jaiswal v. State of U.P.8 and State of
U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and
another9.

18. This Court is, therefore, of
opinion that the impugned orders cannot be
sustained. Of course, the respondents
would have liberty to proceed afresh
against the petitioner from the stage of
issue of the charge-sheet, if they so elect,
but, in the event, the respondents elect to
proceed afresh against the petitioner, they
shall not impose a penalty higher than that
imposed by the impugned orders.

19. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds
and
stands
allowed.
The
impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed
by the Chairman of the Corporation and the
Appellate Order dated 26.07.2023 passed
by
the
Board
of
Directors
of
the
4 All. Dr. Rama Kant & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469
Corporation are hereby quashed. The
respondents will have liberty to proceed
afresh against the petitioner from the stage
of the charge-sheet, subject to the condition
that a penalty higher than that awarded by
the impugned orders shall not be awarded.

20. There shall be no order as to costs.

21. Let the Registrar (Compliance)
communicate this judgment and order to
the
Chairman,
Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corporation Limited, Lucknow and the
Board of Directors, Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation Limited, Lucknow.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 469
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 17113 of 2018

Dr. Rama Kant & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pradeep Kumar, Sri Anil Kumar Singh,
Sri Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Gaurav Singh, Sri Praveen Kumar, Sri Uma
Nath Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mohan Srivastava, Sri
Rohit Pandey, Sri Uma Dutt Shukla

A. Service Law - U.P. St. Universities Act,
1973 - Section 35(2) - Lecturer for selffinance course - Appointment was put in
abeyance - No prior approval of Vice
Chancellor was taken - Effect - Held, the
provision of Sub Section 2 of Section 35
relating
to
prior
approval
of
Vice
Chancellor before dismissal or removal or
reduction in rank or any punishment do
not
make
any
distinction
between
aided/St.
financed
course
and
self
financed course - Statute 17.06 (3) is pari
materia to the provisions as contained
under Section 35(2) of the Act of 1973 -
The
power
of
the
Management
is
conditioned by the prior approval of the
Vice Chancellor. It is a prerequisite and
without that the college/Committee of
Management of the Institution is not at all
entitled in any manner to pass any
resolution and give it effect which may
have adverse civil consequences - The
Committee
of
Management
was
not
justified in putting the appointment of the
petitioners in abeyance. (Para 9, 10, 11
and 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish
Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Committee of Management of the college
concerned and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned
counsel for the University.

2. Petitioners before this Court were
initially engaged in a self-financed course
as a Lecturer in the subject of Sociology
with the approval of the Vice Chancellor
vide
orders
dated
22.10.2003
and
19.09.2007 respectively and continued as
such until the order impugned came to be
passed
on
24.07.2018
putting
their
appointment in the self finance course of
the college, in abeyance.

3. The argument advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
Committee of Management of the college
concerned was not legally authorized to
pass such kind of orders without seeking
prior approval from the Vice Chancellor as