# Suresh Babu v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1298
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-19
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 12991 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-babu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49326
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Major Penalty - Requirement of Oral
Evidence - Principles of Natural Justice -
Petitioner,
a
Junior
Engineer,
challenged
dismissal order dated 07.06.2023 and recovery
of
Rs.3,46,23,208/-
-
Disciplinary
inquiry
initiated on charges of embezzlement - No oral
evidence
or
witnesses
produced
by
10 All. Suresh Babu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1299
establishment to prove charges - Inquiry report
based solely on documents
- Held: In
disciplinary proceedings involving major penalty,
establishment must prove charges through oral
and documentary evidence - Failure to examine
witnesses vitiates inquiry - Impugned order
quashed for procedural lapse - Petitioner to be
reinSt.d forthwith with liberty to respondents to
conduct fresh inquiry - Back-wages to depend
on outcome of fresh proceedings, if initiated .

Petition allowed.

Citations-

## Text

1298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
'NIL'. It transpires that the petitioner had
refused to sign Part-I. In Part III of the
Report, the Commanding Officer answered
'No' to the question - "5. Did the Duties
involve Severe/ exceptional stress and
strain ?".

(22) At this juncture, it would be apt
to note the opinion of the Graded Specialist
in Medical & Neurology of Command
Hospital,
Lucknow
dated
06.09.2014,
which is as under :-

"This 19 year old recruit had
three episodes of generalized seizures
within one month of which one is
witnessed
by
medical
officer.
His
neroimaging is normal but sleep deprived
EEG is abnormal. He will require antiepileptic drug therapy for at least three
years. He is unlikely to withstand the
stress of training and is unlikely to serve
as a fit soldier."

(23) The Medical Board, after
examining the medical record of the
petitioner as well as the opinion of Graded
Specialist in Medical & Neurology of
Command Hospital, Lucknow, concluded
that the disability of the petitioner is neither
attributed to army service nor aggravated
by military service though it assessed the
disability at 20% for life. Such opinion of
the Medical Board dated 18.11.2014 is the
basis of the discharge of the petitioner.

(24) Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in the light of
above discussed Rules and Regulations as
well as settled principles of law enshrined
by the Apex Court in Ex. Cfn. Narsingh
Yadav (supra), we are of the considered
opinion that no doubt the Entitlement Rules
are beneficial in nature and ought to be
liberally construed, however, there has to
be a reasonable causal connection between
the injuries resulting in disability and the
military service. In the present case,
undisputed facts evolve that there is no
connection between the disability and the
military service and as such the Tribunal
had not committed any error in dismissing
the claim of the petitioner to award him
disability
pension
vide
impugned
judgment/order.

(25) The writ petition being bereft of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs

----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1298
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2023

BEFORE

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

Writ-A No. 12991 of 2023

Suresh Babu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manu Mishra, Sri Vijay Pathak, Sri Uday
Karan Saxena (Sr.Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Vinayak
Ranjan, Sri Kartikeya Saran

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Major Penalty - Requirement of Oral
Evidence - Principles of Natural Justice -
Petitioner,
a
Junior
Engineer,
challenged
dismissal order dated 07.06.2023 and recovery
of
Rs.3,46,23,208/-
-
Disciplinary
inquiry
initiated on charges of embezzlement - No oral
evidence
or
witnesses
produced
by
10 All. Suresh Babu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1299
establishment to prove charges - Inquiry report
based solely on documents
- Held: In
disciplinary proceedings involving major penalty,
establishment must prove charges through oral
and documentary evidence - Failure to examine
witnesses vitiates inquiry - Impugned order
quashed for procedural lapse - Petitioner to be
reinSt.d forthwith with liberty to respondents to
conduct fresh inquiry - Back-wages to depend
on outcome of fresh proceedings, if initiated .

Petition allowed.

Citations-

1. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank,
(2009) 2 SCC 570;

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

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

4. St. of U.P. Vs Kishori Lal, 2018 (9) ADJ 397
(DB) followed.

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

1. The petitioner, Suresh Babu,
challenges an order of punishment dated
07.06.2023, by which he has been
dismissed from service and a sum of
Rs.3,46,23,208/- directed to be recovered
from him.

2. The petitioner was appointed a
Technician Grade-II (Vidyut) after being
selected by the U.P. Electricity Service
Commission, Lucknow. He was posted
with the Vidyut Vitran Khand-I, Baghpat
w.e.f.
11.02.2008.
He
worked
as
Technician Grade-II (Vidyut) for the period
11.02.2008
to
08.03.2019
in
the
establishment of the Executive Engineer,
Vidyut Vitran Khand-I, Baghpat. He was
promoted to the post of a Junior Engineer
under orders of the Chief Engineer (Hydel),
Lucknow w.e.f. 08.03.2019. The petitioner
was transferred and relieved from the office
of the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran
Khand-I, Baghpat to join his station of
transfer. He joined as Junior Engineer at
the Vidyut Vitran Khand-I, Loni, District
Ghaziabad, where he discharged his duties
on the said post up to 15.05.2019.

3. By an order of May the 16th, 2019,
the petitioner was placed under suspension
pending inquiry and attached to the office
of the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran
Khand-I, Loni, District Ghaziabad during
the period of his suspension. It was further
stipulated in the order of suspension that
the
petitioner
would
be
entitled
to
subsistence allowance during the period of
suspension, as admissible under rules.

4. It appears that relating to the
charges, that are the subject matter of
disciplinary
proceedings,
a
First
Information Report was also lodged against
the petitioner by the Executive Engineer,
Vidyut Vitran Khand-I, Baghpat and
registered as Crime No.300 of 2019, under
Section 409 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, 'IPC'). In the said crime, the Police
after investigation submitted a charge-sheet
dated 13.08.2019, under Sections 409,
120B IPC against the petitioner and two
other accused in the Court of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat. The learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat has
taken cognizance on 14.08.2020, leading to
the registration of Criminal Case No.2802
of 2019, State vs. Suresh Babu and others,
under Section 409/ 120B IPC on the file of
the learned Magistrate.

5. The petitioner was arrested in the
said case on 16.05.2019 and remained
incarcerated up to 25th of January, 2020.
He was granted bail by this Court on 21st
January, 2020 and released from jail on
1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25th January, 2020. In the meantime, the
petitioner was served with a charge-sheet
dated
07.09.2019
in
the
disciplinary
proceedings carrying three charges, which
relate to embezzlement and irregularities
committed by him. He filed a reply to the
charge-sheet on 23.03.2020. Subsequently,
the petitioner filed a supplementary reply
dated 05.03.2021, wherein he raised a legal
issue that on identical charges and
evidence,
the
criminal
case
and
departmental proceedings ought not go on.
He
requested
that
the
departmental
proceedings be stayed.

6. This Court does not propose to go
into that issue or the other issues raised,
such as discrimination in the matter of
award of punishment to the petitioner vis-avis seven other employees said to be
involved in the same misconduct of
embezzlement.

7. The petitioner remained under
suspension pending inquiry for more than
three years. He, therefore, filed Writ-A
No.3745
of
2021,
challenging
the
suspension order before this Court. It was
disposed of vide order dated 07.07.2021,
asking the respondents to conclude inquiry
within six weeks, failing which the
petitioner will be deemed to be reinstated in
service
and
the
suspension
revoked
automatically. It was in terms of this order
that the petitioner was reinstated in service
vide order dated 19.08.2021, passed by the
Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation. An
inquiry report dated 23.02.2022, drawn up
by a two member inquiry committee, was
submitted to the Chairman, U.P. Power
Corporation. Acting on the said report, a
show cause notice dated 06.04.2022 was
issued to the petitioner along with a copy of
the inquiry report. The inquiry report found
Charge Nos.1 and 2 proved and Charge
No.3 partly proved. The petitioner was
required to submit his reply to the show
cause within fifteen days. He submitted his
reply to the show cause notice on
14.06.2022. A subsequent representation
dated 21.06.2022 was also filed by the
petitioner before the Managing Director,
U.P. Power Corporation, raising a specific
plea that the other similarly situate
employees have been reinstated in service
with minor punishment as per particulars
set out in Paragraph No.31 of the writ
petition. The Managing Director of the U.P.
Power
Corporation
vide
order
dated
07.06.2023 dismissed the petitioner from
service and ordered recovery of a sum of
Rs.3,46,23,208/- from him.

8. Aggrieved, the instant writ petition
has been filed.

9. Heard Mr. Uday Karan Saxena,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Manu Mishra, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Ms. Monika Arya, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1,
Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3
and 4 and Mr. Vinayak Ranjan, Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Kartikeya Saran,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos. 5 and 6. No one appears of
on behalf of respondent No. 7.

10. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has, on the basis of pleas raised,
wholesomely assailed the impugned order
with reference to the fairness of procedure,
as also the perversity of conclusions drawn
on individual charges against him.

11. This Court does not propose to go
into the various issues of challenge raised,
except the one relating to a procedural
10 All. Suresh Babu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1301
lapse in the inquiry, which if true, goes to
the root of the matter, at least insofar as the
validity of the inquiry report, on the foot of
which the impugned order has been passed,
is concerned. It is averred in Paragraph
No.25 of the writ petition that before the
Inquiry Committee presided over by the
Chairman, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Meerut, respondent No.6,
neither any oral evidence was led nor any
witness produced by the Establishment to
prove charges against the petitioner.

12. In answer to the aforesaid
averment, in Paragraph No.14 of the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 to 4, to wit, the Chairman
and the Managing Director of the U.P.
Power Corporation, it has not been denied
for a fact that no witness was produced by
the Establishment in support of the charges.
To the contrary, what is said is that the
petitioner has not disputed the genuineness
of any documents provided during the
course of inquiry nor did he show any
interest in asking the Establishment to
produce any witness for examination or
cross-examination.

13. This Court is afraid that this is not
the standard by which in a domestic
inquiry, particularly one on serious charges
likely to lead to the imposition of a major
penalty, the Establishment has proved its
case. In all such matters, where the
charge(s), if proved, may lead to the
imposition of a major penalty, it is the
bounden duty of the Establishment to prove
their case before the Inquiry Officer by
leading
evidence,
particularly,
oral
evidence, that is to say, by production of
witnesses in support of charge/ charges.
Once the Establishment discharge their
burden of letting in documentary evidence
and examination of relevant witnesses in
support of the charges, does the burden
shift upon the delinquent to produce his
evidence in rebuttal, documentary as well
as oral. Even if the delinquent does not
produce evidence in defence, that does not
absolve
the
Establishment
of
their
obligation to produce evidence in support
of the charges, including witnesses.

14. Oral testimony in an inquiry
involving imposition of a major penalty is a
salutary requirement, that cannot be given a
go-by. Reference in this connection may be
made to the decision of the Supreme Court
in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National
Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570,
where it has been held:

"14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
The enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function. The charges levelled
against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved. The enquiry
officer has a duty to arrive at a finding
upon taking into consideration the materials
brought on record by the parties. The
purported
evidence
collected
during
investigation by the investigating officer
against all the accused by itself could not
be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to
prove
the
said
documents.
The
management witnesses merely tendered the
documents and did not prove the contents
thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by
the enquiry officer on the FIR which could
not have been treated as evidence."

15. Likewise, in Smt. Karuna
Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ
107 (DB) (LB), it has been held by a
Division Bench of this Court sitting at
Lucknow:
1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"15. The law in this regard is very
well-settled and does not need a reiteration,
however, we may refer to a judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, wherein it has
clearly been held that Enquiry Officer acts
as a quasi judicial authority and his position
is that of an independent adjudicator and
further
that
he
cannot
act
as
a
representative
of
the
department
or
disciplinary authority and further that he
cannot act as a prosecutor neither he should
act as a judge; his function is to examine
the evidence presented by the department
and even in the absence of the delinquent
officer, has to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to bring
home the charges.

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
further held in the said judgment of Saroj
Kumar Sinha (supra) that it is only in case
when the Government servant, despite
notice, fails to appear during the course of
enquiry that Enquiry Officer can proceed
ex parte and even in such circumstances it
is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to
record the statement of witness.

17. In the instant case, no oral
enquiry was held, neither the petitioner was
given any notice to participate in any oral
enquiry by fixing date, time and place for
oral enquiry. It is only that the Enquiry
Officer after noticing that despite sufficient
time having been given to the petitioner,
she did not furnish her reply to the chargesheet, he proceeded to submit ex parte
report without conducting any oral enquiry
by fixing date, time and place for such an
oral enquiry. Accordingly, the Enquiry
Officer, in this case, has violated the
aforesaid principles, which clearly vitiates
the
enquiry
proceedings
and
any
punishment order based on such a vitiated
enquiry, is clearly not sustainable."

16. Again, in State of U.P. and
another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018
(9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), dwelling upon the
necessity of holding an oral inquiry where
witnesses are examined first by the
establishment to prove charges, it was
observed by a Division Bench of this Court
sitting at Lucknow:

"14. Now coming to the question,
what is the effect of non-holding of
domestic/oral inquiry, in a case where the
inquiry officer is appointed, oral inquiry is
mandatory. The charges are not deemed to
be proved suo motu merely on account of
levelling them by means of the chargesheet unless the same are proved by the
department before the inquiry officer and
only thereafter it is the turn of delinquent
employee to place his defence. Holding
oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing
a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in
State of U.P. and another v. T.P.Lal
Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831, as well as by
a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash
Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and
another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541.''

15. In another case in Subhash
Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2012(4)
ADJ 4 (NOC), the Division Bench of this
Court after survey of law on this issue
observed as under:

"It is well-settled that when the
statute provides to do a thing in a particular
manner that thing has to be done in that
very manner. We are of the considered
opinion that any punishment awarded on
the basis of an enquiry not conducted in
accordance with the enquiry rules meant
for that very purposes is unsustainable in
10 All. Suresh Babu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1303
the eye of law. We are further of the view
that the procedure prescribed under the
inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is
mandatory in nature and unless those
procedures are followed, any out come
inferred thereon will be of no avail unless
the charges are so glaring and unrefutable
which does not require any proof. The view
taken by us find support from the
judgement of the Apex Court in State of
U.P. and another v. T.P.Lal Srivastava,
1997 (1) LLJ 831, as well as by a Division
Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra
Sharma v. Managing Director and another,
2000 (1) UPLBEC 541."

16. A Division Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari
v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC
1667, held that non holding of oral inquiry
is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order
of disciplinary proceeding including the
order of punishment has observed as under:

"10....... Non holding of oral
inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter
and goes to the root of the case.

11.A Division Bench of this
Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v.
Managing Director and another, 2000 (1)
UPLBEC 541, considering the question as
to whether holding of an oral inquiry is
necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry
is held, it amounts to denial of principles of
natural justice to the delinquent employee.
The aforesaid view was reiterated in
Subash
Chandra
Sharma
v.
U.P.Cooperative Spinning Mills and others,
2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh
v. U.P.Public Service Tribunal and others,
Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided
on 6.5.2005."

17. Even if the employee refuses
to participate in the enquiry the employer
cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he
must hold and ex parte enquiry where
evidence must be led vide Imperial
Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR
1962 SC 1348, Uma Shankar v. Registrar,
1992 (65) FLR 674 (All).

18. The Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta
v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 2 ILR
570, had also occasion to deal with the
same issue. It held:

"At this stage, we are to observe
that in the disciplinary proceedings against
a delinquent, the department is just like a
plaintiff and initial burden lies on the
department to prove the charges which can
certainly be proved only by collecting some
oral evidence or documentary evidence, in
presence and notice charged employee.
Even if the department is to rely its own
record/document
which
are
already
available, then also the enquiry officer by
looking into them and by assigning his own
reason after analysis, will have to record a
finding that hose documents are sufficient
enough to prove the charges.

In no case, approach of the
Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been
submitted, the charge will have to be
automatically proved can be approved. This
will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly
said that disciplinary authority has a right
to proceed against delinquent employee in
ex parte manner but some evidence will
have to be collected and justification to
sustain the charges will have to be stated in
detail. The approach of the enquiry officer
of automatic prove of charges on account
of
non
filing
of
reply
is
clearly
misconceived and erroneous. This is
against the principle of natural justice, fair
1304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer
has to be cautioned in this respect."

B The principal (sic) of law
which emanates from the above judgments
are that initial burden is on the department
to prove the charges. In case of procedure
adopted for inflicting major penalty, the
department must prove the charges by oral
evidence also."

(emphasis by Court)

17. To the same effect are two
decisions of this Court, where I had
occasion to consider the issue, to wit,
Ranveer Singh v. Union of India and
others, 2021 (5) ADJ 136 and Prem
Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and
another, 2023 (2) ADJ 580. In both the
aforesaid decisions, the imperative of
examining witnesses in support of the
charges,
particularly,
in
a
case
involving the imposition of a major
penalty, has been highlighted. Since,
admittedly in the present case, no
witness has been examined and findings
have been recorded on the basis of idle
papers, the inquiry report is held to be
flawed. This Court must remark that the
assertion in the counter affidavit that
the petitioner did not dispute the
genuineness of the document during the
course of inquiry, does not improve the
respondents'
case.
It
is
not
the
respondents' case that the petitioner
endorsed
that
he
admitted
the
documents, on the face of those and
dispensed with any kind of proof.
Therefore, if the petitioner did not say
anything about the documents during
the course of inquiry, it would not
relieve
the
Establishment
of
their
burden to prove their case by examining
witnesses, who would also prove the
documents produced in evidence on
their behalf.

18. Therefore, on this short point
alone, in the opinion of this Court, this
petition deserves to succeed. It is made
clear that the other contentions raised
on behalf of the petitioner, assailing the
impugned order, are all left open to be
examined at the appropriate stage,
should the occasion arise.

19. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the
Managing
Director,
U.P.
Power
Corporation Ltd., Lucknow is hereby
quashed.
The
petitioner
shall
be
reinstated in service forthwith and paid
salary, in the first instance from the
date of this judgment. If, however, the
respondents
choose
to
place
the
petitioner again under suspension in
view
of
the
liberty
hereinafter
indicated, the petitioner shall be paid
his subsistence allowance regularly.
The respondents shall be at liberty to
undertake inquiry afresh in the matter,
on the basis of the charge-sheet, already
issued. The respondents in that event
will proceed, bearing in mind the
guidance in this judgment. If the
respondents elect to proceed against the
petitioner as per liberty given, it would
be open to the respondents either to
reinstate the petitioner, assigning or not
assigning duties to him, but paying
salary regularly, or place him under
suspension pending the inquiry to be held
afresh. The question of payment of backwages shall depend upon the outcome of
the inquiry and the decision taken by the
respondents in the proceedings, if they elect
to pursue such proceedings. It is also
ordered that if fresh proceedings are taken,
10 All. Pankaj Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1305
the same shall be concluded expeditiously,
wherein the petitioner shall cooperate.

20. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1305
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2023

BEFORE

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

Writ-A No. 13013 of 2023

Pankaj Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajai Kumar Singh Kushwaha, Sri Pankaj
Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Pankaj
Agarwal

Service Law - U.P. Power Corporation
Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations,
2020
-
Regulation
7
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings
-
Termination
-
Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement of
Oral Evidence in Major Penalty Cases - U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited
Employees
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 -
Regulation 7.

Held: The impugned order of termination dated
28.06.2023 and the inquiry report submitted on
24.02.2023 were quashed due to violation of
principles of natural justice. The inquiry was
flawed as no witnesses were produced by the
establishment to prove serious charges leading
to a major penalty, and the Inquiry Committee
acted as both prosecutor and arbiter. The
burden
to
prove
charges
lies
on
the
establishment, requiring oral evidence in cases
of major penalties. The petitioner was falsely
implicated in a bribery case, and the inquiry
failed to provide an opportunity for crossexamination or produce essential witnesses. The
petitioner is to be reinSt.d in service forthwith,
with liberty to the respondents to resume
disciplinary proceedings from the charge-sheet
stage in accordance with law. No back wages to
be paid pending fresh inquiry, but the petitioner
is entitled to current salary from the date of
judgment. Continuity and seniority to be
determined based on the outcome of fresh
proceedings.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank,
(2009) 2 SCC 570

2. St. of U.P. Vs Kishori Lal, 2018 (9) ADJ 397
(DB) (LB)

3. Dukh Haran Prasad Vs St. of U.P., 2015 (3)
ADJ 677

4. St. of Uttaranchal Vs Kharak Singh, (2008) 8
SCC 236

5. St. of U.P. Vs T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1)
LLJ 831

6. Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs Managing
Director, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541

7. Salahuddin Ansari Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (3)
ESC 1667

8. Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs Its Workmen,
AIR 1962 SC 1348

9. Uma Shankar Vs Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR
674 (All)

10. Sharad Kumar Varma Vs St. of U.P., 2006
(110) FLR 630

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

1. This writ petition is directed
against an order of termination from
service dated 28.06.2023 passed against the
petitioner by the Chairman, U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd., Lucknow. The petitioner