Siddharth, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has filed above noted writ petition, praying for quashing of the impugned punishment order dated 17.08.2015, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Managing Director, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited, KESA House, Kanpur and the appellate order dated 16.05.2016, passed by the Board of Directors of the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited, KESA House, Kanpur. Further direction has been sought against the respondents to pay the unpaid subsistence allowance w.e.f., 13.12.2008 i.e. for a period exceeding ninety days equal to three fourths of such basic wage, dearness allowance and other compensatory allowances.
(3.) The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Coolie in Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited, KESA House, Kanpur and later he was promoted as Sub Station Operator, which is also a Class-IV post. He was served show cause notice dated 01.09.2008 proposing to remove him from service on the ground that he got employment showing his name as Santosh, son of Dulare, whereas his name is Ashok Kumar. This show cause notice was not preceded by any charge sheet or departmental enquiry and by the order dated 07.10.2010, he was removed from service. Against the removal order, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by means of C.M.W.P. No.57455 of 2008, which was allowed by the following order, "Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mridul Tripathi for the respondent. The petitioner was appointed as a workman in 1990 with the respondent establishment and by passage of time, he was promoted and at present he is working as S.S.O. Bhalroghat with the respondent. On the basis of an enquiry conducted bythe vigilance the services of the petitioner has been terminated by the impugned order but without holding any domestic enquiry. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute this factual position and states that they may be permitted to hold the domestic enquiry in accordance with law and no counter affidavit is required at this stage. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.10.2008 is hereby quashed. However, it would be open to the respondents to conduct a domestic enquiry against the petitioner in accordance to law. Dt.12.11.2008.";