Bhagwat Singh v. Chairman U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Others

2025:AHC:169376 Reserved – 12/09/2025 Delivered – 23/09/2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 47710 of 2010 Bhagwat Singh …..Petitioner(s) Versus Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashi Nandan, Udayan Nandan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhijeet Singh, Abhishek Srivastava, Ayank Mishra, H.R.Mishra, Pankaj Shukla, S.C., Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶1This writ petition is pending since 2010. During pendency of this writ petition, petitioner died and an application for substitution was allowed vide order dated 07.12.2016 though due to default of learned counsel for petitioner, cause title could not be amended, therefore, Court has granted permission to amend the cause title on the date when this case was reserved for judgment.

¶2Petitioner got retired on 31.07.2005 as Sub Divisional Officer from State Electricity Distribution Division, Varanasi after completing about 35 years of service. After his retirement, a disciplinary proceedings was commenced against him and by a charge sheet dated 28.06.2006, 8 charges were levelled against him which were mainly related that during his tenure from

27.07.2004 to 31.07.2005, he was failed to adjust arrears of number of electricity bills, failed to disconnect electricity connections despite arrears of payment of bills, granted consent to a circus company to use electricity without proper procedure, failed to monitor a counter established for cash revenue recovery, failed to provide bills readings in time, adjusted outstanding bill by issuing hand receipts being contrary to due process, has property beyond source of income, failed to follow directions of higher officers and failed to have control over his subordinate staff.

¶3Petitioner had sought time to file a reply to a charge sheet by a communication dated 28.08.2006 and further sought opportunity to peruse records by another communication dated

11.09.2006, and, in such circumstances, he admittedly has not submitted any reply to charge sheet and since Inquiry Officer found that petitioner failed to submit his reply despite opportunity, he submitted Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2006, that petitioner has failed to cooperate during inquiry, therefore, matter be decided on merit. Relevant part of said Inquiry Report is mentioned below :- "

इꗌ鍯ꗌ鍯म्बन्胧瞨्ቦ 敚渻भागव勇劷िሺꗌ鍯䥨㝙उ㜦㜹खण्ⷣᮬ अधि胧瞨कार敚渻(

ꗌ鍯ेवानिवृ्ቈ) को

㜦㜹्ቔांकꗌ鍯ंख्या-134/्ቚ०नि०/㜦㜹ु०निव०निव०नि०धि勇劷०(वा०)

नि&ांक28-6-2006

्ቛ ाराकार㜦㜹ोरेश्ቛ ाराअुमोनि&勇劷आरो㜦㜹㜦㜹्ቔ 勇劷ाम敚渻Ⓟ⓲निकयागया

जि-ꗌ鍯क풾串्ቚ ानि/ क풾串फोटो्ቚ धि勇劷लिⓅ⓲नि㜦㜹ꗌ鍯Ⓟ⓲峭肴को-ार䥨㝙敚渻䥨㝙ै⹘䁙आरो㜦㜹㜦㜹्ቔ में

अभिभकथ्ቚ स्勇劷ु勇劷 करे 䥨㝙े勇劷ुनि&ांक 27-7-2006

勇劷क ꗌ鍯मय नि&या

गयाथा,

㜦㜹रन्勇劷ु्ቦ 敚渻भागव勇劷िሺꗌ鍯䥨㝙ेअभिभकथ ्ቚ स्勇劷ु勇劷कर㜦㜹्ቔ ꗌ鍯ंख्या-

शून्य नि&ांक 25-7-2006

को य䥨㝙 अुरो胧瞨 निकया निकउन्䥨㝙ें

अभिभकथ्ቚ स्勇劷ु勇劷करे䥨㝙े勇劷ु25

नि& काअधि勇劷रिर㞃䦷ꗌ鍯मयनि&या-ाय⹘䁙 (

फोटो्ቚ धि勇劷ꗌ鍯ंⓅ⓲峭肴)

उके्ቛ ाराअुरो胧瞨निकये-ाे㜦㜹रउन्䥨㝙ेंनि&ांक 17-8-2006

勇劷क का ꗌ鍯मय 㜦㜹्ቔांक ꗌ鍯ंख्या 884/㜦㜹ु० निव०निव०नि०लिⓅ⓲(वा०)/

-ां᮲⒊ नि&ांक 25-7-2006

्ቛ ारा नि&या गया (

फोटो्ቚ धि勇劷ꗌ鍯ंⓅ⓲峭肴)

औरय䥨㝙भ敚渻ꗌ鍯ूधि᮲⒊勇劷निकयागयानिकभनिवष्यमे

कोꗦꖓअधि勇劷रिर㞃䦷ꗌ鍯मय䥨㝙ोनि&या-ायेगा⹘䁙㜦㜹ु᮲⑳नि&ांक17-8-2006 को

अवधि胧瞨ꗌ鍯मा/ 䥨㝙ोेकेनि&्ቦ 敚渻भागव勇劷िሺꗌ鍯䥨㝙े㜦㜹्ቔ ꗌ鍯ंख्याशून्यनि&ांक 17-8-2006

को

नि& का अधि勇劷रिर㞃䦷 ꗌ鍯मय 㜦㜹ु᮲⑳ मांगा उके

अुरो胧瞨कोस्वोकारकर勇劷े䥨㝙ु᮲⑿नि&ांक30-8-2006

勇劷कꗌ鍯मयनि&या

गया⹘䁙्ቦ 敚渻भागव勇劷िሺꗌ鍯䥨㝙े㜦㜹्ቔाक-

शून्यनि&ाक30-8-2006

को㜦㜹ु:

नि&ाक 30-9-2006

勇劷क अधि勇劷रिर㞃䦷 ꗌ鍯मय मांगा,

जि-ꗌ鍯े अस्व敚渻कार

कर勇劷े䥨㝙ु᮲⑿㜦㜹्ቔांकꗌ鍯ंख्या-1161/㜦㜹ु०निव०निव०नि०लिⓅ⓲०/

-ां᮲⒊नि&ांक2-9-2006

्ቛ ारा नि&ाक 11-9-2006

勇劷क्ቚ त्येक अवस्था में अ㜦㜹ा

अभिभकथ्ቚ स्勇劷ु勇劷करेकोक䥨㝙ागया( ्ቚ धि勇劷लिⓅ⓲नि㜦㜹ꗌ鍯ंⓅ⓲峭肴)

अन्यथानिक

ቝኌस्थधि勇劷मेंय䥨㝙मा लिⓅ⓲या-ायेगानिकआ㜦㜹कोअ㜦㜹ेब᮲⒊ाव㜦㜹ᰟ㚙मेंकोꗦꖓ

भ敚渻勇劷थ्य/

लिⓅ⓲लिख勇劷अभिभकथ्ቚ स्勇劷ु勇劷䥨㝙┇⒧करा䥨㝙ै,

उ㜦㜹रो㞃䦷㜦㜹्ቔ इन्䥨㝙ें

व्यनि㞃䦷ग勇劷रू㜦㜹ꗌ鍯ेनि&ांक2-9-2006

को्ቚ ा/ करानि&यागयाथा

-बनिक्ቦ 敚渻भागव勇劷िሺꗌ鍯䥨㝙झू旓睲काꗌ鍯䥨㝙ाराⓅ⓲े勇劷े䥨㝙ु᮲⑿इꗌ鍯ेनि&ांक8-9-2006

को्ቚ ानि/ नि&खार䥨㝙े䥨㝙ै⹘䁙(

फोटो्ቚ धि勇劷ꗌ鍯ंⓅ⓲峭肴)

्ቦ 敚渻भागव勇劷िሺꗌ鍯䥨㝙

ेनि&ाक11-9-2006

को㜦㜹ु᮲⑳अभिभकथ ्ቚ स्勇劷ु勇劷करअ㜦㜹े㜦㜹्ቔ

मेंय䥨㝙इंनिग勇劷निकया䥨㝙ैनिकआरो㜦㜹溴肧केꗌ鍯मथM मेंमूⓅ⓲अभिभⓅ⓲ेख溴肧के

㜦㜹र敚渻ᰟ㚙�䥨㝙े勇劷ुअवꗌ鍯र्ቚ &ा करें-बनिक्ቚ ा/ अुमोनि&勇劷आरो㜦㜹㜦㜹्ቔ में

ꗌ鍯भ敚渻ꗌ鍯ाቌኚयꗌ鍯ंⓅ⓲峭肴निकये䥨㝙ꗦ렧इन्䥨㝙┇⒧के्ቛ ारालिⓅ⓲खेगयेउ㜦㜹रो㞃䦷㜦㜹्ቔ溴肧मे

कभ敚渻भ敚渻य䥨㝙इंनिग勇劷䥨㝙┇⒧निकयागया䥨㝙ैनिकइन्䥨㝙ेंमूⓅ⓲अभिभⓅ⓲ेख溴肧के

ꗌ鍯म्बन्胧瞨मेंकोꗦꖓ㜦㜹रेशा敚渻䥨㝙ै⹘䁙नि&ांक28-8-2006

कोअ᮲⒊ाकइन्䥨㝙溴肧े

मूⓅ⓲अभिभⓅ⓲ेखोको&ेखेक풾串आवश्यक勇劷ा䥨㝙ैऔरइꗌ鍯केलिⓅ⓲᮲⑿इन्䥨㝙ें᮲⑿क

म䥨㝙敚渻ेकाऔरꗌ鍯मय᮲⒊ानि䥨㝙᮲⑿㜦㜹रन्勇劷ु㜦㜹्ቔ मेंय䥨㝙इंनिग勇劷䥨㝙敚渻निकयानिक

कौ ꗌ鍯ेमूⓅ⓲अभिभⓅ⓲ेखइन्䥨㝙ें᮲⒊ानि䥨㝙᮲⑿⹘䁙

उ㜦㜹रो㞃䦷ꗌ鍯भ敚渻勇劷थ्य溴肧कोध्या मेंरख勇劷े䥨㝙ु᮲⑿आरो㜦㜹敚渻्ቦ 敚渻भागव勇劷

िሺꗌ鍯䥨㝙उ㜦㜹खण्ⷣᮬ अधि胧瞨कार敚渻कोआरो㜦㜹㜦㜹्ቔ मेंइंनिग勇劷आरो㜦㜹溴肧केꗌ鍯म्बन्胧瞨में

अ㜦㜹ेब᮲⒊ावमेंकोꗦꖓभ敚渻勇劷थ्य

/

लिⓅ⓲लिख勇劷अभिभकथ्ቚ स्勇劷ु勇劷䥨㝙┇⒧करा䥨㝙ै

य䥨㝙भ敚渻स्㜦㜹셞소䥨㝙ैनिक्ቦ 敚渻भागव勇劷िሺꗌ鍯䥨㝙काइꗌ鍯-ां᮲⒊मेंअꗌ鍯䥨㝙योग㜦㜹ू�M

रवैयार䥨㝙ा䥨㝙ैऔरव䥨㝙-ा बुझकरअ㜦㜹ाउ्ቈर्ቚ स्勇劷ु勇劷䥨㝙敚渻करर䥨㝙े

䥨㝙ꗦ렧और  䥨㝙敚渻 इको अ㜦㜹े ब᮲⒊ावमें कु勂尿 क䥨㝙ा 䥨㝙ै 勇劷्቎ुꗌ鍯ारइके

मामⓅ⓲ेमेंगु�ावगु�केआ胧瞨ार㜦㜹रनि�MयⓅ⓲ेाउधि᮲⒊勇劷䥨㝙ोगा⹘䁙"

¶4The Inquiry Officer admittedly has not returned any finding in the Inquiry Report, whether 8 charges levelled in charge sheet were proved or not, rather he has not proceeded even to consider the charges on basis of material available, even in absence of reply of petitioner and referred the proceedings to Disciplinary Authority to decide on merits.

¶5In aforesaid circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to consider charge sheet on its own and as such a show cause notice was issued on 22.11.2007 and without considering that inquiry report has not returned any finding whether charges were proved or not, he referred in the Show Cause Notice that charges were of serious nature and misconduct of petitioner has caused loss to respondents to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000 and proposed as to why not petitioner's pension be withhold and why not an order of recovery be passed. The show cause notice was issued without any finding that charges were proved.

¶6The petitioner thereafter has submitted a detail reply to proposed punishment on 01.01.2008, that not only an ex-parte report was submitted by the inquiry officer but charges were also not proved and further that proposed punishment was passed without adhering to principles of natural justice. It was a post decision order.

¶7The Disciplinary Authority without taking note of legal impediment that inquiry officer has not returned any finding and since proposed punishment was a major punishment, therefore, in such circumstances, correct legal procedure was to remit the matter to the Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry afresh but erroneously proceeded disciplinary proceedings as a Disciplinary Authority to conduct Inquiry himself as an Inquiry Officer and returned a finding that all charges were proved and passed a major punishment on 22.04.2008, withholding entire pension and an order of recovery was also passed. For reference, relevant part of order dated 22.04.2008 is quoted below :- W??AjNo.j47710/2010 " जांच⒊ jअधि ध瞨 कारी渻 jस鍯 ेjपቚ ा्jजांच⒊ jआख् याjके jकारप㜹 ोरशे नjस् त劷 रjप㜹 र स鍯 ावध瞨 ानी渻 jप㜹 ूवरकjप㜹 री渻 +㚙 ण ोप㜹 रान् त劷 jप㜹 ायाjगयाjवि कj शቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jनेjजांच⒊ jममं अस鍯 ह㝙 योगjवि कयाjए⑿ वंjजांच⒊ jअधि ध瞨 कारी渻 jदቛ ाराjप㜹 ूण रj ए⑿ वंjप㜹 यार्j अवस鍯 र उप㜹 ल⓲ ब् ध瞨 jकरायjजानेjके jउप㜹 रान् त劷 jभी渻 jआरोप㜹 jप㜹 तቔ jकाjकोईꖓ jउ्ቈ रjपቚ स् त劷 ुत劷 नह㝙 ी⒧ jवि कया।䁙 jअत劷 ए⑿ वjशቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jकाjजांच⒊ jके jअस鍯 ह㝙 योगjप㜹 ुण रjरवैयाjरह㝙 ाjjह㝙 ैj,jjत劷 थjा उन् ह㝙 ो肧 नेjजानबूझjकरjआरोप㜹 jप㜹 तቔ jकाjउ्ቈ रjपቚ स् त劷 ुत劷 jनह㝙 ी⒧ jवि कयाjह㝙 ।䁙ै jशቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jप㜹 रjल⓲ गायेjगयेjआरोप㜹 jगम् भी渻 रjपቚ कधि त劷 jके jjह㝙 ह렧j,jjत劷 थाjआरोप㜹 jस鍯 ंख् यjाj?ृ j2 jjए⑿ वं jj5 jjस鍯 ेjयह㝙 jस् प㜹 ष소 j ह㝙 ैjवि कj शቦ ी渻 jजि स鍯 ह㝙 jदቛ ाराjवि वभागjकोjरु प㜹 यjाj? j77130?00 jjत劷 थाjरू प㜹 या jj344211?00 jjकल⓲ jरू प㜹 यjाj?421341?0jtiु कोjपቚ त् य+㚙 jरू प㜹 jस鍯 ेjआቕኌ थकj+㚙 धि त劷 jप㜹 ह㝙 ुच⒊ ायी渻 jगयी渻 jह㝙 ।䁙ै अत劷 ः⑳ jशቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jप㜹 रjजि स鍯 द鎯 jप㜹 ायी渻 jगयी渻 jउप㜹 यरक䦷ु jअवि नयवि मत劷 त劷 ाओjं ह㝙 ेत劷 ु जांच⒊ jअधि ध瞨 कारी渻 jस鍯 ेjपቚ ा्j जांच⒊ jआख् याjकी串 jपቚ धि त劷 j स鍯 ंल⓲ ग肴 j करत劷 ेjह㝙 ुए⑿ jकारप㜹 ोरशे न j के j प㜹 तቔ j स鍯 ंख् यjाj?3435j?jणि शाजjाj?0j5jjदj/jप㜹 ाकालि ल⓲jj/2007j? j7(58)0j5jjदj/2005jjवि दनांकjj22?11?2007jjदቛ ाराjशቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jकोjकारण j बत劷 ाओjनोवि टस鍯 jवि नगरत劷 jवि कयाjगयाjवि कjक् यो肧 jनjउनकी串 jस鍯 म् प㜹 ूण रjप㜹 मंशनjजब् त劷 jकरjल⓲ ी渻 jजायेjत劷 थाjकारप㜹 ोरशे नjकोjह㝙 ईꖓ jरू प㜹 या jj421341?00 jjकjोु jवि व्ቈ ी渻 यjह㝙 ावि नjकी串 jवस鍯 ूल⓲ ी渻 jभी渻 jकरjल⓲ ी渻 jजाये।䁙 jशቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jनेjप㜹 तቔ jवि दनांकjj1j? j1?2008 jjदቛ ारा jपቚ स् त劷 ावि वत劷 jदण् डᮬ jके jस鍯 म् बन् ध瞨 jममंj अप㜹 ना jअभ् यावेदjन कारप㜹 ोरशे नjके jवि वच⒊ ाराथरjपቚ स् त劷 ुत劷 jवि कया।䁙 शቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jनेjअप㜹 नेjअभ् यावेदनjममंjमुख् यjआध瞨 ारjयह㝙 jलि ल⓲ याjह㝙 ैjवि क ंआरोवि प㜹 त劷 jवि बन् दओु jके jस鍯 म् बन् ध瞨 jममंjस鍯 मधिु च⒊ त劷 jउ्ቈ रjस鍯 ाकኚ यो肧 jस鍯 वि ह㝙 त劷 jपቚ स् त劷 ुत劷 करनेjह㝙 ेत劷 ुjजांच⒊ jअधि ध瞨 कारी渻 jनेjआवश् यकjअणि भल⓲ ेखो肧 jकी串 jपቚ माणि ण त劷 jपቚ धि त劷 यां उप㜹 ल⓲ ब् ध瞨 j नह㝙 ी⒧ j करायी渻 , jऔर j न j ह㝙 ी渻 j स鍯 म् बसኌ न् ध瞨 त劷 j खण् डᮬ /उप㜹 खण् डᮬ j के अणि भल⓲ ेखो肧 j के jअवल⓲ ोकनjकरानेjए⑿ वंjउनकी串 jपቚ माणि ण त劷 jपቚ धि त劷 यांjउप㜹 ल⓲ ब् ध瞨 करायेjजानेjके jस鍯 म् बन् ध瞨 jममंjकोईꖓ jवि नदkशjवि दयेjत劷 थाjल⓲ गायेjगयेjआरोप㜹 अत् यन् त劷 jस鍯 ामान् यjपቚ कृ धि त劷 jके jह㝙 ।䁙ै शቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jनेjपቚ त् येकjआरोप㜹 jके jस鍯 म् बन् ध瞨 jमेjआरोप㜹 jवारjकथन वि कयाjह㝙 ैjशቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jस鍯 ेjपቚ ा्jअभ् यावेदनjके jकारप㜹 ोरशे नjस् त劷 रjप㜹 रjस鍯 ंगत劷 jअणि भल⓲ ेखो肧 jके jआल⓲ ोकjममंjप㜹 री渻 +㚙 ण ोप㜹 रान् त劷 jप㜹 ायाjगयाjवि कjशቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jकोjj1jti jह㝙 ास鍯 रj प㜹 ावरjकी串 jअस् थायी渻 jस鍯 ंयोजन jj32 jjवि दवस鍯 ो肧 j ह㝙 ेत劷 ुjवि दयेjजानेjकjा अधि ध瞨 कारjनह㝙 ी⒧ j था।䁙 jइस鍯 jपቚ कारjउनjप㜹 रjअनाधि ध瞨 कारjच⒊ ेष소 ाjकाjआरोप㜹 jजि स鍯 द鎯 jह㝙 ।䁙ै jइस鍯 के jअधि त劷 रि रक䦷 jउप㜹 भोक䦷 ाjशቦ ी渻 jस鍯 न् त劷 ुjस鍯 गं त劷 jस鍯 यं ोजनjस鍯 ंख् यjाj? j559940jjके jस鍯 ंयोजनjप㜹 रjरू प㜹 याjj359638?00jjबकायाjह㝙 ोनेjप㜹 रjभjी渻 शቦ ी渻 jस鍯 ोह㝙 नjल⓲ ाल⓲ jयादवjप㜹 ुतቔ j स् व०स鍯 न् त劷 ुjरामjयादवjके jनामjस鍯 ेjनया स鍯 यं ोजनjदेनेjकाjभी渻 jआरोप㜹 jजि स鍯 द鎯 jह㝙 ।䁙ै jअभ् यावेदनjममंjपቚ स् त劷 ुत劷 jवि बन् दओु jं मे jजांच⒊ jममंjस鍯 ह㝙 योगjनह㝙 ी⒧ jवि कयेjजानेjह㝙 ेत劷 ुjस鍯 +㚙 jमj/jस् वी渻 कारjयोग् यjउ्ቈ रjकjा अभावjप㜹 ायाjगयाjअत劷 ः⑳ jइस鍯 ी渻 jए⑿ कjवि बन् दुjके jकारण jअभ् यावेदनjवि नरस् त劷 वि कयेjजानेjयोग् यjथाjत劷 थावि प㜹 त劷 jनस鍯ै रኌ गकjन् यायjकोjबल⓲ jपቚ दानjकरनेjह㝙 ेत劷 ु पቚ त् येकjवि बन् दjु प㜹 रjपቚ स् त劷 ुत劷 jअभ् यावेदनjके jप㜹 री渻 +㚙 ण jममंjप㜹 ायाjगयाjवि कjआरोप㜹 jप㜹 तቔ jके jआरोप㜹 jस鍯 ंख् यjाj?1,j2,j3,j4,j5,j7jjए⑿ वंjj8jjजि स鍯 द鎯 jह㝙 ।䁙ह렧 jअत劷 ए⑿ jव शቦ ी渻 jसሺ स鍯 ह㝙 jकाjअभ् यावेदनjवि नरस् त劷 jवि कयेjजानेjयोग् यjप㜹 ायाjगया।䁙 अत劷 ः⑳ j शቦ ी渻 j भागवत劷 j सሺ स鍯 ह㝙 j(2??2189) jत劷 त् काल⓲ ी渻 न j उप㜹 खण् डᮬ अधि ध瞨 कारी渻 jस鍯 म् पቚ धि त劷 jस鍯 ेवाjवि नवृ्ቈ jकोjस鍯 म् प㜹 ूण रjप㜹 मंशनjजब् त劷 jवि कयेjजानेjए⑿ वं कारप㜹 ोरशे नjकोjप㜹 ह㝙 ुच⒊ं ायी渻 jगयी渻 jवि व्ቈ ी渻 यj+㚙 धि त劷 jरू प㜹 या-421?41-??j(च⒊ ार ल⓲ ाखjइकሪ ी串 स鍯 jह㝙 जारjत劷 ी渻 नjस鍯 ौjइकत劷 ालि ल⓲ स鍯 )jकोjपቚ त् यावि ्jवि कयेjजानेjका दण् डᮬ jवि दयाjजात劷 ाjह㝙 ।䁙ै "

¶8From bare perusal of above order, Disciplinary Authority has committed two legal errors and as rightly pointed out by Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for petitioner that on one hand, Disciplinary Authority proceeded with Inquiry despite Inquiry Officer has not concluded the Inquiry and on other hand, on its own, held that charges were proved being de-hors of the procedure prescribed for imposing a major penalty.

¶9Aforesaid legal error could have cured by the Appellate Authority, however, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.12.2008, without taking note of grounds mentioned in memo of appeal.

¶10Initially, this Court has proceeded with the present case to consider an issue whether in absence of a permission under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations since proceedings was initiated after retirement of the petitioner, a punishment of forfeiting entire pension could be passed or not, therefore, various orders were passed by this Court and relevant orders being 23.07.2018 and 20.08.2018 are quoted below :- "23.07.2018 :- On 19th January, 2017, following order was passed : "1. It is submitted that the question whether after retirement of petitioner from the post of Sub Divisional Officer, State Electricity Distribution Division - VI, Pandeypur, Varanasi any recovery proceeding could have been issued against petitioner or any action can be undertaken for forfeiting entire pension and whether Article 351-A of Civil Services Regulations is applicable to employees of U.P. Power Corporation has been referred for consideration before larger Bench vide order dated 1.8.2016 passed in Service Bench No. 17234 of 2016 U.P. Power Corporation Limited through Chairman-cum-M.D. & Another Vs. Kanti Prasad Varshney.

¶2List this matter after the judgment of larger Bench." Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has not been able to get information as to whether the matter which was referred to the larger Bench has been decided as yet or not. List this matter after three weeks. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner may seek necessary instruction. When the matter is listed next, name of Sri Abhijit Singh shall be shown from the respondents' side. ***********

20.08.2018 :- Sri Abhishek Srivastava has appeared on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4. He states that he has filed the power on behalf of the respondents on 2nd August, 2018. The office shall trace the power and place the same on record. On the last occasion, the learned counsel for the petitioner was required to inform the Court as to whether the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations were applicable to employees of U.P. Power Corporation as the matter was under consideration of Full Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court. Sri Udayan Nandan has informed the Court that the Full Bench was decided on 8.3.2018 and it was held that the service regulations of the Board/ Corporation do not provide for non-applicability of the provisions of Civil Service Regulations and therefore, they shall continue to apply and hence the inquiry that has been held after retirement was not legally permissible without sanction of the Governor. Sri Abhishek Srivastava prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Counter affidavit shall specifically deal whether under the service rules/ regulations applicable to the petitioner, any inquiry after retirement could have been held or not because it is the case of the petitioner that he had retired on 31.7.2005 whereas the charge-sheet was submitted on 28.6.2006 which was not legally permissible. List this matter of 10th September, 2018 by which date the learned counsel for the Corporation shall file a detailed counter affidavit dealing with all the aforesaid aspects."

¶11At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that a Full Bench of this Court has decided a reference in a bunch of writ petitions filed before Lucknow Bench of this Court in Service Bench No. 17234/2016 on 08.03.2018 whereby it was held that Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations of 1995 passed by the State Government are applicable to the employees of the U.P. Power Corporation and the reference was answered in following terms :- "25. It was specifically put to the learned counsels for respondent that if the Civil Services Regulations are not adopted and made applicable on the employees of the Board/Corporation, then, under which provision they would be entitled to pensionary benefits. Counsels for the respondent could not place before this Court any other scheme under which employees of the Board/Corporation would be entitled to pensionary benefits. He could not dispute that the pensionary benefits are being given to the employees under the Civil Services Regulations only. The stand of the respondents,

therefore,

becomes

self contradictory. On one hand they are admitting the applicability of the Civil Services Regulations while on the other hand, they are disputing its adoption by the Board. Hence, there is no force in the stand taken by the respondents. The question is, thus, answered as follows:- "Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations framed by the State Government are applicable to the employees

of

the

U.P.

Power Corporation.""

¶12Per contra, learned advocates for respondents has not denied that Inquiry Officer has not returned any finding so far as whether charges were proved or not.

¶13Learned advocates have referred a decision taken by Board of Directors of UPPCL on 28.02.2016 whereby a permission was granted to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after his retirement and that such permission was never challenged. The permission/sanction was within jurisdiction of Director of UPPCL but whether it was based on appreciation of circumstances of the matter or it appears application of mind could still be looked into by this Court (see judgment dated

23.10.2021 passed in Special Appeal (D) No. 646/2021 UP Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anil Kumar Sharma and others).

¶14At the relevant time, provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1999 was applicable to disciplinary proceedings of employees of UPPCL, therefore, once in terms of Regulations of 1999, the Disciplinary Authority has appointed an Inquiry Officer, thereafter, said Officer has to conduct an Inquiry in terms of Clauses (iii) to (xii) of Regulation 7 of 'Regulations, 1999' and to submit a report under Regulation 8 of said 'Regulations, 1999' which shall contain a sufficient record of facts, the evidence and statement of the findings on each charge and the reasons thereof, however, the Inquiry Report submitted in present case does not contain any of such details.

¶15On basis of Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority has to proceed in terms of Regulation 9 of Regulations, 1999 i.e. 'Action on Inquiry Report', however, since there was no finding in the Inquiry Report on charges and since there was no procedure to commence the inquiry by Disciplinary Authority on its own in said Regulations, therefore, in terms of Clause (1) of Regulation 9 of 'Regulations, 1999', the Disciplinary Authority should have remitted the case for re-inquiry to the Inquiry Officer, but admittedly it was not done, therefore, entire inquiry got vitiated being de-hors of prescribed in 'Regulations, 1999'.

¶16In view of above discussion as well as in given set of circumstances, permission granted is also not accompanied with any reason, therefore, also impugned order could not survive. Accordingly, Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Order passed by the Appellate Authority are, therefore, set aside.

¶17Now issue before this Court is as to what relief could be granted. Undisputedly, petitioner died during pendency of this writ petition, therefore, in the interest of justice with following directions, writ petition is disposed of :-

(a) Legal heirs of petitioner (since deceased) i.e. his wife viz. Nirmala Singh will get legally admissible family pension from the date of death of her husband i.e.

03.05.2012. Arrears shall be paid within 6 months preferably in 3 installments;

(b) Other entitlement i.e. due pension of petitioner (since deceased) since date of his retirement i.e. 31.07.2005 till date of his death i.e. 03.05.2012 shall be quantified and that his legal heir i.e. his wife shall get 1/4th of it and for that respondents will undertake necessary steps;

(c) Aforesaid exercise shall be completed within six months. [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.] Dt./- September 23, 2025 N. Sinha High Court of Judicature at Allahabad