High Court · 2025

treated as misconduct. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet dated 25.03.2025, wherein it has been categorically indicated that the petitioner has violated Rule 18 (1) (2) of the aforesaid Rules, which categorically provides that if any employee would purchase/ earn any movable/immovable properties etc. without seeking prior approval from the competent authority and specific allegations against the petitioner in the charge-sheet is that he is having some movable and immovable properties without getting prior approval from the competent authority, which is a misconduct.

4. Sri Shahi has submitted that in the charge-sheet there is no signature of the Managing Director, who is competent authority. However, the Additional General Manager (Complaints) has stated in the charge-sheet that the aforesaid charge-sheet has been issued after getting prior approval from the Managing Director.

5. Sri Shahi has also submitted that in the charge-sheet, there is no signature of the Enquiry Officer . As per Sri Shahi, in the suspension order Rule 5 (3) and Rule 18 of Rules have been indicated whereas in the charge-sheet only Rule 18 (1) (2) have been referred, therefore, the impugned suspension order as well as charge-sheet are illegal and unwarranted. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Sri Shahi has referred the decision of Apex Court in re; A.L. Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., reported in (1984) 3 SCC 316, referring paras 21 and 22 by submitting that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to specify and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex post facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct.

6. Sri Shahi has also submitted that the bare perusal of the charge-sheet revels that the allegations of the charge- sheet are vague and wiithout referring any documentary evidence as it has been indicated that if the petitioner is willing the opportunity of personal hearing or willing to examine any witness/evidence, he may submit his defence reply. In the charge-sheet, there is no list of witnesses.

7. Per contra; Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the terms 'misconduct' as define in Rule 5 (3) of the Rules, which have been indicated in the impugned order, would clearly applicable in the present case, inasmuch as the allegations against the petitioner earned/purchased movable and immovable properties without seeking prior approval from the competent authority and without intimating such property to the competent authority after purchasing the same, which is mandatory and if any employee commits such misconduct,it is taken seriously, so in that case departmental inquiry is required .

8. Sri Shishir Jain has also submitted that the property in question is so disproportionate having huge value, therefore, the petitioner is placed under suspension, so that fair and imperial departmental inquiry would be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law.

9. Sri Jain has also submitted that charge-sheet has been issued by the inquiry officer indicating therein that such charge-sheet has been issued after getting prior approval from the competent authority i.e. the Managing Director. He has further submitted that the charge-sheet in question is having definite charges referring the relevant rules i.e. Rule -18 (1) (2) of the Rules, which would be applicable in the present case. Since the allegations against the petitioner is that he has earned/purchased movable and immovable properties having huge value thereof without taking prior approval from the competent authority and without intimating such properties after purchasing the same, therefore, the opportunities of personal hearing would be given to the petitioner to defend the charges and it is needless to say that if the department is relying any documentary evidences list thereof shall be provided to the petitioner .

10. Sri Shishir Jain has stated that while conducting the departmental inquiry , procedure so prescribed shall be followed strictly in accordance with law and after considering the defence reply to the charge-sheet so submitted by the petitioner, the date, time and place would be fixed for conducting oral inquiry. The aforesaid inquiry would be conducted fairly and impartially and the aforesaid departmental inquiry would be concluded with expedition subject to proper cooperation of the petitioner inasmuch is without proper cooperation of the employee, no departmental inquiry can be conducted and concluded with expedition strictly in accordance with law.

11. Sri Jain has also submitted that after conclusion of the departmental inquiry report shall be submitted before the disciplinary authority alongwith copy of the charge- sheet and the disciplinary authority shall provide a copy of the inquiry report and shall seek explanation from the petitioner issuing show cause notice to that effect by affording opportunity of hearing to him also and final order may be passed strictly in accordance with law.

11. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner is to retire on 30.04.2025,therefore,it is expected from the inquiry officer to conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from date of receipt of the defence reply to the charge-sheet subject to proper co- operation of the petitioner.

12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. . Order Date :- 10.4.2025 dk/ (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

treated as misconduct. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet dated 25.03.2025, wherein it has been categorically indicated that the petitioner has violated Rule 18 (1) (2) of the aforesaid Rules, which categorically provides that if any employee would purchase/ earn any movable/immovable properties etc. without seeking prior approval from the competent authority and specific allegations against the petitioner in the charge-sheet is that he is having some movable and immovable properties without getting prior approval from the competent authority, which is a misconduct.

4. Sri Shahi has submitted that in the charge-sheet there is no signature of the Managing Director, who is competent authority. However, the Additional General Manager (Complaints) has stated in the charge-sheet that the aforesaid charge-sheet has been issued after getting prior approval from the Managing Director.

5. Sri Shahi has also submitted that in the charge-sheet, there is no signature of the Enquiry Officer . As per Sri Shahi, in the suspension order Rule 5 (3) and Rule 18 of Rules have been indicated whereas in the charge-sheet only Rule 18 (1) (2) have been referred, therefore, the impugned suspension order as well as charge-sheet are illegal and unwarranted. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Sri Shahi has referred the decision of Apex Court in re; A.L. Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., reported in (1984) 3 SCC 316, referring paras 21 and 22 by submitting that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to specify and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex post facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct.

6. Sri Shahi has also submitted that the bare perusal of the charge-sheet revels that the allegations of the charge- sheet are vague and wiithout referring any documentary evidence as it has been indicated that if the petitioner is willing the opportunity of personal hearing or willing to examine any witness/evidence, he may submit his defence reply. In the charge-sheet, there is no list of witnesses.

7. Per contra; Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the terms 'misconduct' as define in Rule 5 (3) of the Rules, which have been indicated in the impugned order, would clearly applicable in the present case, inasmuch as the allegations against the petitioner earned/purchased movable and immovable properties without seeking prior approval from the competent authority and without intimating such property to the competent authority after purchasing the same, which is mandatory and if any employee commits such misconduct,it is taken seriously, so in that case departmental inquiry is required .

8. Sri Shishir Jain has also submitted that the property in question is so disproportionate having huge value, therefore, the petitioner is placed under suspension, so that fair and imperial departmental inquiry would be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law.

9. Sri Jain has also submitted that charge-sheet has been issued by the inquiry officer indicating therein that such charge-sheet has been issued after getting prior approval from the competent authority i.e. the Managing Director. He has further submitted that the charge-sheet in question is having definite charges referring the relevant rules i.e. Rule -18 (1) (2) of the Rules, which would be applicable in the present case. Since the allegations against the petitioner is that he has earned/purchased movable and immovable properties having huge value thereof without taking prior approval from the competent authority and without intimating such properties after purchasing the same, therefore, the opportunities of personal hearing would be given to the petitioner to defend the charges and it is needless to say that if the department is relying any documentary evidences list thereof shall be provided to the petitioner .

10. Sri Shishir Jain has stated that while conducting the departmental inquiry , procedure so prescribed shall be followed strictly in accordance with law and after considering the defence reply to the charge-sheet so submitted by the petitioner, the date, time and place would be fixed for conducting oral inquiry. The aforesaid inquiry would be conducted fairly and impartially and the aforesaid departmental inquiry would be concluded with expedition subject to proper cooperation of the petitioner inasmuch is without proper cooperation of the employee, no departmental inquiry can be conducted and concluded with expedition strictly in accordance with law.

11. Sri Jain has also submitted that after conclusion of the departmental inquiry report shall be submitted before the disciplinary authority alongwith copy of the charge- sheet and the disciplinary authority shall provide a copy of the inquiry report and shall seek explanation from the petitioner issuing show cause notice to that effect by affording opportunity of hearing to him also and final order may be passed strictly in accordance with law.

11. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner is to retire on 30.04.2025,therefore,it is expected from the inquiry officer to conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from date of receipt of the defence reply to the charge-sheet subject to proper co- operation of the petitioner.

12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. . Order Date :- 10.4.2025 dk/ (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench