Sheo Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, learned counsel for respondents.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.02.2014 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) issued by the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of misconduct and was punished by way of censure entry and deduction of amount equal to three increments. It has further been prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 17.03.2006 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.03.2006 and to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Director (Distribution), U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow.
(3.) The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer at Obra on 31.05.1982 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 01.06.1991. In due course of time the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and again as Deputy General Manager (Distribution), U.P. Power Corporation Limited at Electricity Distribution Circle, Hardoi. While working on the post of Deputy General Manager at Electricity Distribution Circle, Hardoi, from 2001 to July 2002, a forged purchase order amounting to Rs.6,34,905/- was issued in favour of M/s Naman Traders, Sitapur. After scrutiny of papers and inquiry, it was found that the aforesaid purchase order was a forged order causing heavy pecuniary loss to the Corporation and as such a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The matter was directed to be inquired by an Enquiry Committee constituted under Clause 6 of the U.P. State Electricity Board (Officers & Servants) (Condition of Service) Regulation, 1975 and copy of the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. After considering the inquiry report, it was found by the department that loss caused to the Exchequer or to the Department was not considered by the Committee, thus, the matter was again referred to the Enquiry Committee II after approval of the competent authority and the Enquiry Committee, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and recording the statement of the relevant witnesses, submitted the report in which the petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duties and committed the act in connivance of the Proprietor of M/s Naman Traders causing huge financial loss to the Corporation. By the impugned order, the petitioner was punished with censure entry and deduction of an amount equal to three increments. Due to the report of the Committee and the punishment order, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the higher post, thus, the present writ petition.;