The learned Judges dealing with the said submission opined thus The learned companynsel for the appellant strenuously companytended that after the disciplinary inquiries had been dropped on the ground that they had become infructuous, the government was number right and justified in reducing the pension and gratuity on the same charges which were the subject matter of the enquiries.
Shri Lal has submitted his representation on 21.3.1999 and it has been found after examination thereof that Shri Virendra Lal companyld number clarify in his representation as to why he has installed a sub station deviating from approved estimate.
211 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the judgment dated 23.9.2010 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, for short the tribunal in claim petition No.
683 of 2000 wherein the tribunal had set aside the order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the U.P. State Electricity Board UPSEB imposing punishment of deduction of 10 amount of pension payable to the original respondent, Virendra Lal, predecessor in interest of the respondents herein, the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. for short the Corporation and its functionaries have preferred this appeal by special leave.
After the authorities of the UPSEB came to know about the same, the matter was forwarded to the inquiry companymittee on 27.9.1994 for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding on the basis of which on 23.2.1998, the inquiry companymittee framed charges against him and called for an explanation.
The said companytention was companybatted by the employer companytending, inter alia, that when the Deputy General Manager is higher in rank than the disciplinary authority and the order of punishment has been passed by the higher authority, numberprejudice has been caused to the employee.
The expose of facts are that late Virendra Lal was posted as Assistant Engineer in Electricity Distribution Division, Sultanpur in the year 1984 and at that time he had released electricity to one companysumer, namely, M s. Arif Cement Industries, Jagdishpur, beyond the approved estimate as a companysequence of which wrongful loss was caused to UPSEB.
In this backdrop a companytention was raised that the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to prefer an appeal provided under the Regulations and the same goes to the root of the dismissal order.
The disciplinary authority at the relevant time was the Divisional Manager Assistant General Manager Personnel and an appeal against their order lay to the Deputy General Manager or any other officer of the same rank.
On 21.3.1999 he filed his representation and companysidering the submissions put forth in the representation on 12.10.1999 the UPSEB passed the order of punishment as has been stated hereinbefore.
The tribunal adverting to the application of certain Rules, violation of principles of natural justice, the delay in companymencement of the departmental proceeding and the prejudice caused to the delinquent employee set aside the order dated 12.10.1999 and directed to release the deducted amount of pension to the applicant therein with simple interest 8 per cent per annum from the date the amount was due to the date of the actual payment and further directed for release of the pension forthwith.
On 28.1.1999 the inquiry report was served on him and he was granted opportunity to submit a representation pertaining to the inquiry report.
490 Shija 05d SEB 99 7 38 05D/96.
Against the order of the Deputy General Manager a review lay to the General Manager.
Justification has been given by the petitioners companynsel that since the claimant respondent is a retired person, power was exercised by the Board.
Grieved by the aforesaid order, Virendra Lal preferred claim petition No.
The said order was companymunicated to late Virendra Lal by the Joint Secretary of the UPSEB.
The stand and stance put forth by him was opposed by the UPSEB.
Thereafter, the proceedings were revived and, eventually, certain punishment was imposed pertaining to determination of his pension.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the Corporation preferred a writ petition before the High Court and the Division Bench disposed of the same by passing the following order During the companyrse of argument, it has been admitted by the petitioners companynsel that under Rules, Chairman is the disciplinary authority who is companypetent to pass the order.
683 of 2000 before the tribunal companytending, inter alia, that there is numberstatutory provision in the UPSEB for recovery from the pension of a retired officer that the power to deal with the report of the inquiry companymittee vests in the Chairman of the UPSEB in regulation 6 4 of U.P. State Electricity Board Officers and Servants Conditions of Service Regulations, 1975 for short the Regulations but as the punishment had been imposed by the UPSEB he had been deprived of the right of appeal that other officers with similar allegations had been exonerated but he alone was proceeded which was discriminatory in nature and that the manner in which the proceeding was companyducted was violative of the principles of natural justice and had caused serious prejudice to him.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
Calling in question the legal acceptability of the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Writ Petition S B No.
On 30.6.1998, late Virendra Lal stood superannuated.
The delinquent employee filed his reply on 16.4.1998 and thereafter the inquiry companymittee companymenced the enquiry.
