Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30007 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5327 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suchitra Rastogi Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Its Chairman Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrish Kumar Gaur Counsel for Respondent :- Neerav Chitravanshi Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri S. K. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for opposite parties. 2. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "(i). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order of punishment dated 17.03.2025, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. (ii). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant all service benefit including monetary benefits consequent upon quashing of impugned order of punishment dated 17.03.2025 as contend in annexure No.01 to the writ petition." 3. Challenging the impugned punishment order, the petitioner has submitted that before passing the impugned punishment order, the petitioner has not been affording opportunity of hearing. No date, time and place was fixed to conduct the oral inquiry. Learned counsel has stated that the law is trite on the point that if the department is willing to prove any charge against the charged employee, the specific date, time and place would be fixed for oral evidence to prove the charge. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the inquiry report wherein one reference has been given regarding amended chargesheet dated 28.01.2023 and copy thereof has been shown to the Court which has been enclosed with Annexure-7,whereby the number of related documents have been corrected. Learned counsel has further stated that though the opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing was given to the petitioner on 27.09.2022, but such opportunity of personal hearing may not be concluded from the required exercise of oral hearing by fixing date, time and place and if the date of personal hearing was 27.09.2022 then in respect of amended chargesheet dated 28.01.2023, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. 4. Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, has tried to defend the impugned order by submitting that since the date for personal hearing was fixed and the opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear in the exercise of personal hearing on 7.09.2022 through video conferencing, therefore, it may be treated as proper opportunity of hearing. He has also submitted that since the documents are to be proved which were given to the petitioner along with chargesheet therefore no date, time and place was fixed for oral hearing. So far as the amended chargesheet dated 28.01.2023 is concerned, Sri Chitravanshi has stated that by means of amended chargesheet only the book number of the relevant documents have been changed and it may not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since the petitioner has been awarded a major punishment by way of impugned punishment order, therefore, the procedure so prescribed under the rules applicable in the department should have been adhered properly. 6. Prima facie, it appears that the procedure so prescribed has not been followed inasmuch as no date, time and place for oral inquiry has been fixed and if documentary evidences are to be proved, even then the oral inquiry was required showing the documents to the petitioner seeking his reply and the specific finding thereon, must be returned. Further, if any amended chargesheet was issued, at least one opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner on such amended chargesheet but undisputedly no such opportunity was given to the petitioner on the amended chargesheet inasmuch as amended chargesheet was given on 18.01.2023 whereas, the date of personal hearing was 27.09.2022, therefore, the impugned punishment order dated 17.03.2025 may be set-aside only on the aforesaid limited points. 7. In view of above, the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by opposite party No.2 is hereby set- aside/quashed. 8. The matter is remitted to the respondents authority to conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry from the stage of defects with following directions:- i) The petitioner shall be given list of departmental witnesses who are proposed to be examined and also provided with copies of adverse materials which are to be relied upon against him. ii) The enquiry officer shall set specific dates for the enquiry proceedings and intimate the same to the petitioner in advance thereof. iii) The department shall produce relevant departmental witnesses in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. iv) The petitioner shall cooperate in the enquiry proceedings. v) The enquiry proceedings shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. All other dues and entitlements of the petitioner shall be determined after the result of the enquiry proceedings. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench