Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11332 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1479 of 2025 Petitioner :- Khwaja Masood Ahmad Shah Respondent :- U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Chairman Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Kapoor Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for all the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided. It is contended that the facts of the instant case have already been set forth in detailed by this Court in the order dated 05.02.2025 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "Heard. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even prior to his retirement, a charge sheet dated 09.10.2017 had been issued which has now culminated into the impugned punishment order dated 12.09.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. The argument is that a perusal of the said order would indicate that the same has been passed by the Chief Engineer although once an order is to be passed after the retirement, the same can only be passed with the approval of the Board of Directors. The further contention is that in the inquiry proceedings which had been conducted against the petitioner, no date, time and place of inquiry was ever fixed which thus vitiates the impugned order of punishment and the inquiry which had been conducted against the petitioner. Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions in the matter. List this case in the next week as fresh." Today, Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondents states that the order impugned has in fact been passed by the Chief Engineer rather could only be passed by the approval of Board of Directors which is lacking in the instant case. Considering the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 12.09.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition becomes vitiated in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 12.09.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequences to follow. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 21.2.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench