The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has set aside the penalty of 25% deduction from the pension of an 81-year-old retired General Manager of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL), holding that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the prescribed procedure as the department failed to lead evidence to establish the charges against him.
A Division Bench of Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai and Justice Alok Mathur allowed the writ petition filed by Surendra Pratap Singh, who had challenged the U.P. Public Services Tribunal’s order dismissing his claim against the punishment imposed by UPPCL.
The disciplinary proceedings arose from allegations dating back to 1992–1993, when Singh was serving as Executive Engineer (Commercial) under the Lucknow Electricity Supply Undertaking. He was accused of failing to discharge his supervisory duties, allegedly resulting in a financial loss of ₹6,06,835.02 to the department through incorrect credit entries in consumer accounts.
The Court noted that although the special audit report formed the basis of the charges, the members of the audit team who prepared the report were never examined during either of the departmental inquiries. The department also failed to produce evidence to prove the allegations or afford Singh an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Interpreting Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, the Bench reiterated that the inquiry officer must first lead evidence in support of the charges and prove the documents relied upon. Only thereafter can the delinquent employee be called upon to present his defence and cross-examine the witnesses.
The Court observed that merely granting a personal hearing, without first producing evidence against the employee, was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of a fair inquiry. It further noted that the department had failed to conduct a regular inquiry despite an earlier direction of the High Court in 2014 to do so.
The Bench also took note of the fact that the Assistant Accountant, who was alleged to have been directly responsible for the financial irregularities, had been exonerated for want of sufficient evidence. The original documents forming the basis of the allegations were also unavailable.
Considering that the allegations related to events nearly three decades earlier, that the petitioner was 81 years old, and that the department had failed to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure even after an earlier opportunity, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter for a fresh inquiry.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated August 9, 2016, as well as the punishment order dated May 21, 2015. It directed the respondents to pay the entire pension arrears arising from the 25% deduction within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of the judgment until actual payment.