HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 4633 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Pooja Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Prashant Singh Atal, learned counsel for petitioners- Jal Nigam, Lucknow and Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioners- Jal Nigam, Lucknow have challenged the judgment and order dated 01.05.2023 passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.86 of 2018; Om Prakash Pandey vs. State of U.P. and ors., by which the claim petition of the private respondent, who was working as Assistant Engineer, has been allowed and the punishment order dated 11.07.2017 as also the appellate order dated 26.07.2017 have been quashed. 3. The submission of learned counsel for Jal Nigam, Lucknow is that three charges were levelled against the private opposite party and charge no.2 was found proved, but the Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that this charge was not found proved. It was also her submission that as regards charge no.2 the same was found proved and the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report in respect thereof, therefore, there was no disagreement whatsoever for being communicated to the delinquent employee and this could not have been a ground for the Tribunal to interfere in the matter. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Samir Om Counsel for Respondent(s) : Savita Jain U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Thru. Managing Director Lko. And Another .....Petitioner(s) Om Prakash Pandey .....Respondent(s) 4. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal dated 01.05.2023 as also the enquiry report and the punishment order. Out of the three charges, admittedly, the first and third charge have not been found proved. With regard to the second charge, we do not find any financial loss or irregularity having been committed, nor is there any such finding in the enquiry report that it is the private respondent alone who was responsible for the same. Vague and general recitations are contained while recording the finding. The entire finding is only in four lines. 5. That apart the Tribunal was persuaded to quash the punishment order firstly on the ground that proceedings for imposition of major punishment were initiated against the private respondent by issuance of a charge sheet on 19.03.2016 to which the said employee responded, but thereafter no date, time and place for holding an enquiry, as prescribed for imposition of a major punishment, was conducted. The law is settled that if proceedings for imposing a major punishment are initiated then irrespective of the fact that ultimately a minor punishment is imposed the proceedings should have been conducted as prescribed for imposition of a major punishment because the stage of imposing the punishment falls after completion of the said procedure. The Tribunal found that no date, time and place for such enquiry was fixed by the enquiry Officer which was dehors the U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which are the Rules applicable in the U.P. Jal Nigam, a fact which is not in dispute. We asked the petitioners' counsel to kindly demonstrate as to what is the perversity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this count, but inspite of her best efforts she could not demonstrate the same from the records. She could not demonstrate that the factual position was otherwise. 6. We have also perused the punishment order by which minor punishment of withholding of one increment for one year was imposed along with recovery of Rs.36,106/-. As already stated earlier, no financial irregularity or financial loss was caused, assuming that charge no.2 was WRIA No. 4633 of 2024 2 proved, nor is there any such finding in the given report. Charge nos.1 and 3 were not proved, therefore, we fail to understand as to what for the recovery was ordered. The disciplinary authority it seems has gone beyond the enquiry report. If he wanted to do so then he could have collected material and confronted the delinquent employee with the same and should have then taken a decision in this regard. It is in this context that the Tribunal has observed that if a different view was being taken by the disciplinary authority then opportunity should have been given. 7. Disciplinary proceedings were clearly vitiated on account of violation of the U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and reasons given herein above. The tribunal rightly allowed the claim petition. 8. We also take into consideration that the fact that the private opposite party/ claimant has already retired from the services of petitioner- Jal Nigam, Lucknow on 30.09.2017, therefore, it is too late in the day to consider as to whether the Tribunal should have granted liberty to the petitioner to conduct a fresh enquiry. 9. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that this is not a case where extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. 10. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 9, 2025 Arnima WRIA No. 4633 of 2024 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench