Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27478 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4616 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prince Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Energy Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi,P.R.S. Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. Ashutosh Mishra Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard. 2. This Court has passed the order dated 29.04.2025, which reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Daya Shanker Tiwari, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Dr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 to 4. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned punishment order dated 11.11.2024 and appellate order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexures 2 and 1) respectively. The main ground to assail the aforesaid orders is that while passing the impugned punishment order dated 11.11.2024, the Disciplinary Authority has not verified the relevant fact that the Inquiry Officer has not fixed any date, time and place to conduct oral inquiry to prove the charges and on the basis of faulty inquiry report, the impugned punishment order has been passed. When the specific ground has been taken before the appellate authority to that effect, the appellate authority has passed a mechanical order without considering the contents of appeal and grounds while passing the impugned appellate order dated 03.04.2025. 3. Only on the aforesaid limited point, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 to 4 is granted a week's time to seek complete written instructions in the matter. 4. List this case on 09th May, 2025 as fresh. 5. This matter may be taken up after fresh cases." 3. Dr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 to 4 has produced the copy of a letter dated 08.05.2025 alongwith parawise comments provided by one Mr. Satyarth Gangwar, Deputy Secretary (Transmission-III) to satisfy the query of the Court, which is taken on record. Dr. Mishra has referred paras 1 & 2 of the aforesaid letter to satisfy the query of the Court which reads as under: "1. Regarding the Inquiry Officer Not Fixing a Date/Time/Place for Oral Inquiry: It is respectfully submitted that Sri Srivastava was informed vide committee's letter no. 1457 dated 18.08.2023 to appear for personal hearing before the inquiry committee. Sri Srivastava did appear before the committee on 19.08.2023 and submitted his written statement. Further, in his earlier statement dated 06.05.2022, the petitioner clearly admitted to the allegation in the chargesheet that the mandatory requirement of an "A- Class License" was omitted while uploading the tender documents. It was the petitioner's responsibility to present any witness in his defence, such as the Computer Operator, but he never informed the inquiry committee that he wanted to call a witness. In his statements dated 06.05.2022, 19.08.2023, and even during the personal hearing, he never requested that any witness be summoned or examined. At no point during the inquiry did he raise any objection to the process or ask for witnesses to be called in his defence. In view of this, it is a well-established legal principle that facts which are unequivocally admitted do not require further proof to be proven. Hence, there was no requirement of any further evidence to be adduced in the inquiry. 2. Appellate Authority passed a Mechanical Disposal of Appeal: It is respectfully submitted that the appellate authority examined all material on record including the original enquiry findings, the disciplinary authority's order, and the petitioner's appeal. From the perusal of appeal it is clear that the appeal failed to raise any new facts. It reiterated content already placed before the Inquiry Committee and adequately dealt with in the punishment order. The legal infirmities as alleged by the petitioner in his writ and appeal are baseless as the disciplinary proceedings were carried out as per rule 7 of DP rules, 2020." 4. The perusal of aforesaid reply of the opposite party makes it crystal clear that no date, time and place has been fixed by the Inquiry Officer to conduct the oral inquiry to prove the charges. 5. Undisputedly, the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and if the charges have been denied by the petitioner, the departmental inquiry could have been conducted strictly in terms of regulation 7 of U.P. Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 2020 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation 2020). Under regulation 7 of the Regulation 2020, the complete mechanism has been given to conduct the departmental inquiry, sub clause 7 of Regulation 7 is relevant to reproduced herein below: '' जहहह आररपपत कहपररक आररपप कर इनकहर करतह हह, वहहह जहजच अधधकहरर/ जहजच सपरपत आररप- पत रम पसतहपवत सहकर कर बबलहनन कक कहररवहहर करनगह और आररपपत कहपररक कक उपसससपत रम धजसन ऐसन सहपकरप कक पपतपररकण कह अवसर पदरह जहरनगह, उनकन रमधखक सहकर कर अपभधलधखत करनगह। उपरबरक सहकरप कर अपभधलधखत करनन कन पशचहतत जहजच अधधकहरर/जहजच सपरपत उस रमधखक सहकर कर रहजगनगह और उसन अपभधलधखत करनगह धजसन आररपपत कहपररक नन अपनर पपतरकह रम अपनन धलधखत कसन रम पसतबत करनह चहहह सह। पपतबनध रह हह पक जहजच अधधकहरर/ जहजच सपरपत ऐसन कहरणप सन जर धलधखत रप रम अपभधलधखत पकरन जहरमगन, पकसर सहकर कर बबलहनन सन इनकहर कर सकन गह।'' 6. The aforesaid sub clause-7 of the Regulation 7 categorically provides that if the charged employee denies the charges, Inquiry Officer shall fix the date, time and place to examine the witness and material to conduct the oral inquiry inquiry but that exercise has not been undertaken in the present case. Though, the date for personal hearing was fixed. There is difference between fixing date for personal hearing and fixing date, time and place to conduct oral inquiry to prove the charges. Therefore, it is expected that one date for personal hearing was fixed by the Inquiry Officer, it would not suffice the purpose and it would be in violation of sub clause-7 of the Regulation 7 of the Regulation 2020. 7. Notably, the specific pleading to that effect has been taken by the appellate authority but the appellate authority has not taken into account such plea of the petitioner, therefore, the appellate order is also unwarranted and passed without application of mind. 8. The submission of Dr. Mishra to the effect that the petitioner has himself not given any list of witness/evidence to examine or cross examine, therefore, it would have been futile exercise to fix any date, time and place for oral inquiry to prove the charges, is misconceived inasmuch as the law is settled on the point as considered above that it is a responsibility of the department to prove the charges leveled against the charged employee by fixing date, time and place to conduct oral inquiry even the charged employee does not participate in such inquiry. Therefore, in the light as has been considered above and in the light of the settled principle of law as has been discussed above, this writ petition is liable to be allowed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, one fact is very clear that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law by fixing the date, time and place for oral enquiry to prove the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are illegal inasmuch as such findings are based on the defective enquiry. 10. The Apex Court in the case in re: Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held that mere production of documents is not enough but the contents of the documentary evidence has to be proved by examining the witnesses fixing the date, time and place for oral enquiry. The Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) went to the extent that even if the delinquent employee confessed his guilt before the police relating to the same charge, so called confession itself would not be sufficient and some evidence ought to have been brought on record that the delinquent employee was involved in the offence in question. Since the department has levelled the charges against the delinquent employee, therefore, it is responsibility and duty of the department to prove those charges through oral enquiry. 11. The Apex Court in the case in re: State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 has reiterated the aforesaid proposition of law and held that if the Enquiry Officer has not fixed the date, time and place to conduct oral enquiry to examine the witnesses to prove the charges against the delinquent employee, the entire enquiry proceedings would be vitiated being violative of principles of natural justice and in total disregard of the fair play. Therefore, in that case, such enquiry report would be liable to be set aside/ quashed and the impugned punishment order, which is based upon the enquiry report, would also be liable to be set aside/ quashed. 12. Even if any opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, though the same has been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but that opportunity of personal hearing would not suffice the purpose inasmuch as even if the delinquent employee did not avail such opportunity of personal hearing, the Enquiry Officer will have to prove the charges against the employee examining the witnesses and the documents by fixing the date, time and place for oral Inquiry. Notably, in the present case, no date time and place has been fixed by the Enquiry Officer to conduct oral enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the impugned punishment order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure-2) passed by opposite party No.3 and appellate order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure- 1) passed by opposite party No.2, are hereby set-aside/quashed. The Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. However, it is always open for the disciplinary authority to conduct the denovo department inquiry if it is so required inasmuch as the impugned punishment order has been set-aside/quashed for the reason that the departmental inquiry was defective and the same has been conducted and concluded without following due procedure of law under regulation 7 of the Regulation 2020. However, if the decision to denovo inquiry is taken, the same may be taken with expedition and if any fresh inquiry is initiated against the petitioner, the same may be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law, with expedition. 15. The writ petition is allowed. 16. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench