1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow (for short, 'the Corporation'), dismissing the petitioner's departmental appeal against an order of punishment after inquiry, passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation dated 17th January, 2022, and ordering the punishment to be enhanced. The Managing Director of the Corporation had awarded the petitioner, a Junior Engineer, a censure entry and the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal, has enhanced the punishment to a reduction to the petitioner's basic pay scale, recovery of a sum of Rs.1,18,558/-, while maintaining the censure.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these:

Satyendra Kumar Singh Yadav, the petitioner, was appointed a Junior Engineer with the Corporation after selection by the Electricity Services Commission, Lucknow. The petitioner submitted his joining report on 12.04.2017 as a Junior Engineer (Trainee) with the Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Agra. The petitioner was posted vide order dated 13.04.2017 as a Junior Engineer (Trainee) at the Electricity Distribution Division-III, Hathras. By a subsequent order dated 21.04.2017, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, 132 KV Substation, Odhapura, Hathras, the petitioner was posted at the 33/11 KV Substation, Agsauli. In addition, he was also assigned, by way of additional charge, work relating to 33/11 KV Substation Kachaura. It is his case that the distance between Substation Agsauli and Substation Kachaura is 5 kilometers, the distance between Agsauli and Nagla Jalalpur is 15 kilometers, and that apart, the villages falling under the local limits of these two substations are spread out over an area of 60 kilometers. The petitioner says that he had joined service and working, as already said, as a Junior Engineer (Trainee). In the face of his limitations as a fresh recruit, he was not allowed access to records of earlier events and proceedings nor handed over any documents/ records by his superiors. He was not provided with any vehicle to cover the vast area of 60 kilometers to discharge his duties as the Junior Engineer (Trainee), holding additional charge of a substation. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred to Electricity Distribution Division-I, Hathras, which is 50 kilometers away from the Electricity Distribution Subdivision, Sikandarabad, under which the three substations in his charge, already mentioned, fell. During this period of time, the petitioner was sent for training at the Electricity Training Institute, Lucknow from 15.05.2018 to 13.06.2018.

In accordance with his order of appointment, the petitioner was to serve as a Junior Engineer (Trainee) for a period of one year, to wit, from 21.04.2017 to 20.04.2018. He was on probation until 13.06.2018. By an order, of which there is not much accurate mention in the writ petition, but seems to be one that was given effect through an order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the S.D.O., Electricity Distribution Division-I, Hathras, the petitioner was transferred to the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company. The petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 27.07.2020, issued by an Inquiry Committee appointed by the Corporation, respondent No.5, carrying two charges against him. It would be apposite to set out the two charges laid against the petitioner in the charge-sheet together with the evidence, by which these are sought to be proved, as mentioned in the charge-sheet, verbatim

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet taking a stand that a Junior Engineer (Trainee) serves on probation and does not hold independent charge. He has to be appointed on training going by Regulation 15 of the UPSEB (Subordinate Electrical & Mechanical Engineers Service) Regulation, 1972. After the training period is over, Regulation 23 of the same Regulations postulates that the Junior Engineer be posted on probation. No Junior Engineer is allotted independent charge till he successfully completes his probation. It was urged, therefore, that any charge against the petitioner during the period dated 12.04.2017 to 12.04.2019, when he was either under training or on probation, is not maintainable. The Inquiry Committee, after receipt of the petitioner's reply, submitted an inquiry report dated 07.07.2021, without considering that reply in the correct perspective and without holding the inquiry in compliance with Regulation 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 (for short, 'the Regulations of 2020').

4. It is the petitioner's case that whatever kind of an inquiry was held, no witnesses on behalf of the establishment were produced to prove the charges against the petitioner in accordance with Regulation 7(7) of the Regulations of 2020. No oral inquiry in that sense was held, which is mandatory in case of imposition of a major penalty. There are averments to this effect in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the writ petition. A copy of the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner along with a show cause notice dated 04.09.2021 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause on 30.09.2021, wherein too a plea was raised that there was no compliance with Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2020. It is urged in paragraph No.19 that in answer to the show cause notice, a specific defence was taken that no witnesses were produced on behalf of the establishment to prove the charges before the Inquiry Committee, an imperative in case of a major penalty.

5. The Managing Director of the Corporation, by an order dated 17.01.2022, proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of both charges that were held fully proved. He then proceeded to punish the petitioner with a censure and withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, a major penalty under the Regulations of 2020. The petitioner carried a departmental appeal to the Chairman of the Corporation. The Chairman issued a notice to the petitioner dated 26.07.2022, even before he had decided the appeal, asking him to show cause why the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Managing Director, be not enhanced. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 05.09.2022 to the Chairman of the Corporation. The Chairman of the Corporation, by the order impugned dated 15.04.2023, has proceeded to enhance the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, as already indicated.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. By an interim order dated 25.09.2023, for reasons indicated there, while granting time to the respondents to file their return, recovery ordered by the Chairman of the Corporation, was restrained by this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. No counter affidavit has been put in on behalf of respondent No.4, though they are represented by Ms. Usha Kiran, Advocate. On 16.10.2023, this petition was formally admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

8. Heard Mr. Manu Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, and Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Usha Kiran, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.

9. Mr. Manu Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have failed to consider the issue that in any departmental inquiry, where there is likelihood of imposition of a major penalty, it is imperative for the establishment to prove the charges before the Inquiry Committee by leading evidence, both documentary and oral. By oral evidence is meant, the examination of witnesses on behalf of the establishment to prove the charges, and may be some of the documents, on which the establishment rely to bring home the charges. The evidence has to be presented before the Inquiry Committee, who ought not to assume that the charges are true in themselves, but require the establishment to prove these by evidence. This has not been done at all, according to Mr. Mishra, in the present case. The Inquiry Committee have looked into the charge-sheet and the petitioner's reply, and going by idle records, reached their conclusions, without any evidence being produced on behalf of the establishment.

10. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, who are all functionaries of the Corporation, submits that it is not necessary for the establishment to produce witnesses in every case, though he concedes for a fact that witnesses were not examined. He further says that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the non-examination of the witnesses. It is also urged by him that Regulation 7(7) of the Regulations of 2020 requires the production of witnesses only if the charge-sheet carries with it a list of witnesses; not otherwise. In the present case, no witness was cited in the charge-sheet to bring home the charge. Therefore, it was not at all imperative for the Corporation to have produced witnesses in support of their case before the Inquiry Committee.

11. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by the learned Counsel and perused the record.

12. A perusal of the inquiry report, which comprises two members, to wit, the Chief Engineer (Inquiry Committee) and the Accounts Officer (Inquiry Committee) shows that in the first part, the charges are set forth and then the petitioner's reply quoted verbatim extensively for every detail of it. The finding recorded on the first charge by the Inquiry Committee is a stark exemplar of the poor understanding by the members of the Inquiry Committee about the basics of procedure, governing the conduct of a departmental inquiry. The findings on Charge No.1, recorded by the Inquiry Committee, in their own words, in Hindi read:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

13. This charge is based on a report of the Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance), attached to the Corporation, who has reported that the petitioner, in submitting his report relating to one Rajesh Upadhyay, a consumer holding electricity connection No.3501/35063, adopted a superficial approach with a view to extend undue benefit to the consumer. The petitioner, according to the Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance), submitted an incorrect report relating to the aforesaid consumer's billing. The charge says that if the petitioner had submitted a correct report, this position would not have emerged. The charge further says that in a report by the Committee, which prima facie refers to some kind of a preliminary inquiry done by a Committee, the fact was affirmed that the consumer concerned utilized the electricity connection to run a flour mill (Ata Chakki). The Inquiry Officer, upon a perusal of departmental records, like the ledger and other documents, found that the consumer's premises had Meter No. PR1221 installed and his reading was posted in the ledger. According to a certain Memo No. 784 dated 04.02.2019, based on the report of a Committee, permanent disconnection of the consumer's connection was effected and there was a total outstanding of Rs.10,21,887/- against him, which was reduced to Rs.9,41,404/-. A later rectification of the bill brought down the figure to Rs.1,10,914/-. The petitioner has been charged with submitting an incorrect report relating to this consumer, which not only lead to a loss of revenue for the Corporation, but also brought in contradictions.

14. This Court must remark for an illustration that Charge No.1, which has been set out in the charge-sheet, can hardly be called a charge. Indeed, it is not a charge at all and reflects extremely poor forensic understanding on the part of the Corporation's establishment. This Court gathers an impression, upon looking at the entire process of this inquiry, that the Corporation and its officers are not minded to learn the basics of holding a fair and proper departmental inquiry. Of course, it would include the framing of a proper charge-sheet.

15. The first charge, which we are considering, reads like an imputation in support of the charge, but not the charge. A valid charge in a departmental inquiry need not be in any particular or specified form. All that is required is that, it should convey to the delinquent the allegation against him in minimal and specific words, carrying particulars about the date, time, place and the act attributed to him, which constitutes a misconduct under particular provisions of the applicable Service Regulations/ Rules. A fortiori the charge has to be brief and intelligible. It should not read like an essay or a long winded paragraph, where the precise allegation against the delinquent is lost in the alleys of the descriptive words. This Court finds the first charge, as the respondents choose to call it, to be utterly vague in the sense that it does not precisely convey to the delinquent the allegation against him. There is repeat reference in the charge to an Inquiry Committee and then an Inquiry Officer, which obviously bears reference to either some kind of a preliminary inquiry or an inquiry undertaken to examine the consumer's case on the commercial side. But, all that is not clear. This kind of a long winded and descriptive statement, if written with more certainty and precision, might have served as a statement of imputation in support of the charge, as already remarked. This Court is, therefore, of opinion that by not precisely framing Charge No.1, the respondents have caused prejudice to the petitioner in effectively defending himself in answering it.

16. This Court would advert to the second charge a little later.

17. The the way the Inquiry Committee have held proceedings is utterly flawed. A perusal of the report shows that they considered the petitioner's defence to the charge that he was a Junior Engineer (Trainee), who could not and did not act independently during the period. The Committee have remarked that the petitioner has written on a certain Form-9 "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." The Inquiry Committee say that from a perusal of the report of the Committee dated 01.02.2019, the fact is proved that after installation of the connection in question for a period of three years, it was used to energize a flour mill (Ata Chakki). The Inquiry Officer found upon a perusal of departmental records, ledger etc. that the consumer had on his premises Electricity Meter No. PR1221 installed, the reading whereof was entered in the ledger. The petitioner had ignored the aforesaid records and submitted a superficial report, leading to the charge being established.

18. Now, a perusal of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Inquiry Committee shows that they have held no inquiry at all. It does not show that any evidence was produced before the Inquiry Committee and any kind of a hearing was scheduled, where the Inquiry Committee convened themselves formally into an Inquiry Tribunal, as they ought to have done, in a matter involving the likely imposition of a major penalty. They seem to have sat in their office during the routine of their daily business as employees of the Corporation, perused the record and held the charge proved, assuming it to be a proof of itself. This is not the salutary procedure by which departmental inquiries are to be held. There is a reference in the short finding recorded by the Inquiry Committee to a report of the Inquiry Committee dated 01.02.2019 and the report of an Inquiry Officer. Apparently, these reports relate to some Inquiry Committee or probe by an Inquiry Officer, done during the time when a preliminary inquiry into the matter was held by the Corporation. It is also possible that one of these, to wit, either the Inquiry Committee, referred to in the relative finding on Charge No.1, or the Inquiry Officer mentioned there, might be an inquiry related to the commercial matter, concerning the consumer concerned.

19. Be that as it may, the Inquiry Committee, while holding Charge No.1 proved against the petitioner, could not have accepted either a preliminary inquiry report as proof of the charge or the report of the Committee or an Inquiry Officer undertaken in a commercial matter. These reports were referred to in Charge No.1 and could well form basis of framing a charge against the petitioner as done here. But, the charge could not be held proved by any preliminary or other inquiry, other than evidence that was led before the Inquiry Committee appointed to hold a departmental inquiry in the disciplinary matter.

20. What appears from a reading of the findings is that no evidence whatsoever was led on behalf of the establishment, either documentary or oral before the Inquiry Committee in the departmental proceedings. This had to be done through a Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Committee had to sit as an impartial arbiter, presuming the charge to be just a case that the establishment had put forward against the petitioner. It was for the establishment, that is to say, respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, to have proved this charge by leading both documentary and oral evidence before their own Inquiry Committee. It was also imperative for the establishment to produce oral evidence or witnesses in proof of the charges here, because there was the likelihood of imposition of a major penalty. It is imperative by salutary principle, in all cases where a major penalty may be awarded, that the establishment do prove the charges by producing witnesses. It needs to be remembered that in the first instance, it is the burden of the establishment to produce evidence, both documentary and oral, and, when witnesses are produced, the delinquent has the right to cross-examine them. It is not that by not citing witnesses or the delinquent not asking witnesses to be called to establish the case against him, the requirement of examining witnesses by the establishment would be negated. After the establishment have produced evidence, both documentary and oral, the delinquent has to be given opportunity to lead evidence in his defence, which again can be both documentary and oral. Nothing of this kind of an exercise has been undertaken by the Inquiry Committee as we have deciphered hereinabove, recapitulating the steps and reasonings of the Inquiry Committee in the few words that they have scripted.

21. The law governing the salutary principle, that makes imperative the examination of witnesses in support of the establishment's case, where the disciplinary proceedings are likely to lead to the imposition of a major penalty, is well established on high authority. In this connection, reference may be made to the holdings 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).

22. Before parting with the matter, we must also refer briefly to the second charge against the petitioner. This charge is formulated in more intelligible terms than the first charge, but does lack some important particulars, such as the date and time or the time period of the attributed misconduct. The respondents may consider reformulating this charge, if they so desire. The first charge, of course, would have to be recast altogether, for all reasons that we have indicated hereinabove.

23. We, therefore, find the charge and the departmental inquiry, on the foot of which the impugned orders have been passed, are procedurally flawed, rendering the impugned orders also bad for the same reason.

24. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order 17.01.2022 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation and the appellate order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the Chairman of the Corporation are hereby quashed. The charge-sheet dated 27.07.2020 is also quashed. The respondents will have liberty, if they so elect, to issue a fresh charge-sheet to the petitioner and undertake an inquiry de novo, bearing in mind the remarks of this Court and the law. It is made clear that if the respondents elect to take fresh proceedings against the petitioner, a punishment higher than that already imposed, will not be imposed.

25. There shall be no order as to costs.