Enormity Of Charge Does Not License Employer To Jump To Conclusions: Allahabad High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Employee

While dealing with a case where oral evidence was not led by an employer to prove charges against the, the Allahabad High Court remarked that “the seriousness or enormity of the charge does not license the employer to jump to conclusions.”

Directing the reinstatement of the employee, Justice J.J. Munir observed,

“The more serious the charge, the more serious the consequence for the employee that are likely to ensue, in the event of its proof, and, the more strict, therefore, would be the requirement of procedural fairness in the departmental inquiry, where, the inquiry must proceed according to salutary and settled principles of holding a fair inquiry, which requires the Establishment to discharge their burden in the first instance, by leading evidence, with due opportunity to the delinquent.”

The Court emphasised that documents attached to the chargesheet are not to be treated as evidence themselves without testing their validity through oral evidence and examination and cross-examinations of witnesses.

“It is to be emphasized that the documents annexed to the charges are not to be treated by the Inquiry Officer as proof of themselves. These are required to be proved by the Presenting Officer through evidence led on behalf of the Establishment; else, these documents are nothing but idle papers, on the basis of which, no inference can be drawn against an employee.”

The Court held that the employer must prove their charges first. The Court held that the only exception to that rule would be if the delinquent employee admits to the charges. In absence of such admission, it is mandatory upon the employer to lead oral evidences and witnesses.

Factual Background

Petitioner was an Office Assistant-II in the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Amroha, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. Initially, he was suspended from service and inquiry officer was appointed to hold departmental inquiry. Petitioner alleged that though he was called for personal hearing, no witnesses were produced or examined on behalf of the Establishment to prove charges, nor any oral inquiry held.

After exchange of reply on the inquiry report, order was passed against the petitioner, adjudging miscellaneous advance against him to the tune of ₹36,67,357.32 for causing loss to the Corporation. Petitioner contended that he was never given an opportunity to counter the demand imposed on him and was dismissed from service.

Appeal filed under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. A revision was filed before the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited against the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority under Regulation 13 of the Regulations of 2020 which was also rejected.

Petitioner argued that the charges were held to be proved against him without requiring the Corporation to prove the charges by producing evidence, oral evidence or witnesses, in support of the charges.

In the counter affidavit, the respondent claimed that the petitioner had not questioned any documentary evidence that was produced, nor asked to examine any witness, accordingly, it cannot be said that the inquiry was not proper.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that without inspecting the premises of the customer, a view was formed that the petitioner had deliberately tampered with the meter reading with an intention of personal gain and loss to the Establishment.

“This Court must remark that the charge itself is a big jumble up of money transactions and reads more like a statement of imputation, regarding which, one would expect a more concise charge elsewhere. It is true that all that is required about a valid charge in disciplinary proceedings is that it must, in intelligible and clear terms, convey to the delinquent what the allegations against him are, but, at the same time, in order that the charge be intelligible, it ought to be concise, so as not to make the understanding of its terms hazy.”

The Court observed that since the petitioner had filed a very detailed reply to the charges levelled against him, it was incumbent upon the Establishment to prove the charges before the Inquiry Officer by leading evidence in the first instance.

“It is the burden of the Establishment to prove the charges that they have brought against the delinquent in the first instance, by leading both documentary and oral evidence. It is also an imperative by principles of salutary procedure that oral evidence in support of charges must be led by the Establishment.”

The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha to emphasise on the burden of leading oral evidence which lies on the Department before awarding any major penalty.

Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another wherein it was held that it is mandatory for employer to prove charges by examine witnesses in every case where major penalty is sought to be imposed on the employee.

The Court held that it is mandatory on the employer to discharge its burden of evidence and provide a chance to cross-examine the witnesses relied on before imposing major penalty on an employee.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with his current salary. The Establishment was granted liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Case Title: Sumant Kumar vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 63 [WRIT - A No. - 14824 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 63

Click Here To Read/Download Order