Akhilesh Singh v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 3.3.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer an incident took place on 2.5.2023 in which it was alleged that the petitioner was caught red handed receiving Rs 10000/- as bribe. FIR was lodged against him and a criminal case is pending against him.

4. The petitioner was issued with a chargesheet dated 11.7.2023, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the writ petition, per which it was indicated that on account of aforesaid conduct the petitioner has maligned the image of the corporation. Certain other allegations have also been levelled against him. After due inquiry the inquiry report dated 2.8.2024 was submitted in which the petitioner was not found guilty of charges. Show cause notice dated 30.9.2024, a copy of which is annexure 17 to the writ petition, was issued per which it was indicated that on account of his aforesaid conduct the image of the corporation is maligned and thus charge no. 1 is established against the petitioner. The reply submitted by the petitioner did not find favour with the competent authority who by means of order dated 3.3.2025 dismissed the petitioner from service and hence the 2 WRIA No. 3439 of 2025 petition.

5. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that disciplinary proceedings against employees of the corporation are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2020). Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 2020 specifically provides that in case the disciplinary authority does not agree with the any findings of the inquiry officer then he would have to indicate the reasons thereof.

6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 30.9.2024 does not indicate as to why the disciplinary authority has disagreed from findings of the inquiry officer rather he has only indicated the charge levelled against the petitioner, which would not be in consonance with the Rule 9(2) of the Rules 2020, which has not been appreciated by the disciplinary authority despite the petitioner having submitted reply and disregarding the same, the impugned dismissal order has been passed.

7. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the Rules 2020 categorically provide for giving of reasons by the disciplinary authority in the case of disagreement with inquiry officer's report, consequently in the absence of any reasons being assigned in the show cause notice, any action taken by the disciplinary authority would be vitiated in the eyes of law.

8. On the other hand, Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondents argues that considering the conduct of the petitioner of having been caught red handed with the bribe it is apparent that the image of the corporation has been maligned and hence there is no infirmity in the order passed dismissing the petitioner from service.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that in the inquiry report which was submitted, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges by the inquiry officer. The inquiry report did not find favour with the disciplinary authority who issued show cause notice dated 30.9.2024 per which it was indicated that on account of misconduct of petitioner the image of corporation was 3 WRIA No. 3439 of 2025 maligned and thus he disagreed with the inquiry report.

10. No other reasons emerge from perusal of show cause notice as to why the disciplinary authority has disagreed with findings of inquiry officer more particularly when the petitioner has not been found guilty of charge(s) levelled against him by the enquiry officer of which the charge was of having maligned the image of corporation as he had been caught red handed taking bribe.

11. Rule 9(2) of the Rules 2020 categorically provides that in case the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of inquiry officer the reasons are to be indicated.

12. As already indicated above no reasons emerges from perusal of show cause notice as to why the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer apart from simply reiterating the charge against the petitioner and thus the method as adopted by the disciplinary authority while issuing show cause notice cannot be said to be in consonance with Rules 2020.

13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed.

14. The order impugned dated 3.3.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside.

15. The disciplinary authority shall proceed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner indicating the reasons for his disagreement which would be issued within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter the disciplinary authority shall proceed to pass a final order after considering the explanation of the petitioner to the said show cause notice. In any view of the matter, the final order, after consideration of the reply of the petitioner, shall be passed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

16. The consequential benefits, if any, would be subject to the order passed by the disciplinary authority in pursuance of this order.

17. The Neerav Chitravanshi states that prior to passing of the order impugned the petitioner was under suspension as such it is open for the 4 WRIA No. 3439 of 2025 respondents to place the petitioner under suspension in pursuance of this order. September 22, 2025 J. K. Dinkar (Abdul Moin,J.) JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench