S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The main prayer in this writ petition is for quashing the order dated 24.10.1990 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) through which services of the petitioner, who was junior engineer in U.P. State Electricity Board (now Power Corporation) were terminated. Against the said order, petitioner had filed representation, which was rejected on 07.07.1998 (Annexure-8). Said order has also been challenged through this writ petition. Petitioner crossed the age of superannuation on 31.01.2002. Petitioner was suspended on 29.05.1982, which order was served upon him on 04.12.1982. The allegation against the petitioner related to the period between 26.07.1977 to 22.12.1981 when he was posted in Electricity Supply Division, Firozabad. Inquiry Officer (I.O.) submitted the report on 17.11.1989, which is Annexure SA-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit. The precise charge against the petitioner in the charge-sheet was that he in collusion with M/s Rathi Glass Art, Firozabad, a consumer of Electricity Board sanctioned the electricity connection to the said concern and he concealed the material facts due to which connection was sanctioned. Reply was required to be filled by 28.12.1982. On the said date instead of filing reply, petitioner asked for 11 documents from I.O. Accordingly, some of the documents were shown by the I.O. to the petitioner, which included B & L form of M/s Rathi Glass Art, certificate affixing the electricity meter on the premises of the above concern, statement of Assistant Engineer, Meters, Firozabad, statements of Sri K.M. Varsney and Sri U.S. Agarwal, Junior Engineers, joint report dated 30.09.1981 prepared by Executing Engineer, Electricity Inspection Division, Agra, D.S.P., Vigilance Department. Thereafter, 15.02.1984 was fixed for enquiry at Firozabad. In spite of sufficient information/notice, petitioner did not appear. On 17.02.1984, I.O. informed the petitioner that he was not cooperating in the enquiry. Ultimately, the report was submitted by the I.O. to the appointing authority on 22.02.1984. However, it appears that appointing authority asked the I.O. to provide further opportunity to the petitioner and in that regard, letter was written on 08.11.1985. Consequently on 22.10.1986, I.O. again asked the petitioner that in case he wanted to peruse some other records then he should inform the I.O. Petitioner did not give any reply to the said letter. Again similar letter was sent by I.O. to the petitioner on 04.08.1987 to file reply within three days. Petitioner did not respond to the said letter also. Thereafter, the said information was published in two Hindi Newspapers having wide circulation in the State, i.e. Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagaran. Thereafter, on 14.03.1988, I.O. again wrote a letter to the petitioner to submit the reply by 30.03.1988. Thereupon, the petitioner intimated the I.O. that he had not received the earlier letter dated 13.10.1986. Copy of the said letter was sent by the I.O. to the petitioner through letter dated 04.04.1988. In spite of it, reply was not filed by the petitioner and petitioner continued to write letters to the I.O. seeking either adjournments or copies of the documents. The I.O. again fixed 30.05.1988 and thereafter 16.08.1988 for filing the reply. Thereupon, the petitioner sent an application to the I.O. on 12.08.1988 requesting to examine the following officers: (i)Sri Surendra Saxena, the then Executive Engineer, Electricity Inspection Division, Agra. (ii)Sri B.N. Dubey, the then Assistant Engineer (Test), Electricity Inspection Division, Agra. (iii)Sri R.K. Jain, the then Assistant Engineer (South), Electricity Distribution Division. (iv)Assistant Engineer, Meters, who was working in Firozabad area of Electricity Inspection Division, Agra. The request was accepted and the I.O. intimated the petitioner through letter dated 09.03.1989 that he must be present on 04.04.1989 at 11 a.m. so that he could examine the witnesses. The said date was extended to 18.04.1989 and then to 19.04.1989. Petitioner appeared before I.O. on 19.04.1989. Sri Surendra Saxena had to go at some other place on 19.04.1989, hence for examining him date was adjourned to 16.05.1989 and then to 11.07.1989. On 11.07.1989, the above four officers were present in the office of I.O., however petitioner did not examine any one of them and requested that he wanted to avail the assistance of some government officer so that he could ask questions on his behalf from the witnesses. The date was accordingly adjourned to 17.10.1989 about which written information was given to the petitioner. On the said date, the petitioner did not appear. Ultimately, on being convinced that petitioner was not interested in participating in the enquiry, the I.O. submitted the report on 17.12.1989 holding the petitioner to be guilty. Accordingly, on 24.10.1990, Chief Engineer passed the order of termination of petitioner's services. Representation of the petitioner was rejected on 07.07.1998 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) by Chairman, Electricity Board (now Power Corporation). Through the said order, representation was rejected. In this writ petition, counter affidavit was filed on 26.08.2003. Thereafter, two supplementary counter affidavits were filed on 11.02.2009. On the said date, learned counsel for the petitioner categorically stated that he did not propose to file any affidavit in rebuttal. On the same date, arguments were heard in part and the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded on the order sheet of the said date. Supplementary counter affidavits were filed in reply to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 18.12.2003 filed on 19.07.2004. Alongwith one supplementary counter affidavit (the thicker one) copy of inquiry report dated 17.11.1989 has been annexed as Annexure SA-2 (last Annexure). In the said report it is mentioned that the petitioner asked for 11 documents out of which four documents were shown to the petitioner and rest of the demanded documents were such regarding which even petitioner was not clear as to whether the said documents were in existence or not. Against all those documents petitioner in his application had stated that copy of the said document should be provided to him if any such document was in existence. Thereafter, detailed report was given and it was also mentioned that repeated opportunities were provided but petitioner did not avail the same and neither the petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet nor cross examined the departmental witnesses nor produced any witness of his own. The only thing which the petitioner stated was that he 'denied the charges'. The findings are based on the following facts : 1. Petitioner reported on 2.7.1981 that he checked the connection of M/s Rathi Glass Art, Firozabad on 02.07.1981 and found the same to be quite okay.
(2.) ON 20.09.1981 checking of M/s Rathi Glass Art was done by D.S.P. Vigilance, Agra, Assistant Engineer South Firozabad and other officers and employees and it was found that only cable meter was installed but no separate load was sanctioned for M/s Rathi Glass Art and M/s Emkay Glass works was drawing its load from the connection of M/s Rathi Glass Art. Similarl report was given by Executive Engineer, Inspection, Agra on 17.10.1981 to the effect that meter of M/s Rathi Glass Art was closed (not working) and the load was being drawn by M/s Rathi Glass Art. In the meter certificate of M/s Rathi Glass Art, Firozabad dated 23.07.1981 it was mentioned that in the absence of any load meter could not be inspected. The Inquiry Officer held that if until 23.07.1981 load had not been connected then how the petitioner on 02.07.1981 reported that meter was properly installed and working. Accordingly, it was found proved that petitioner on 02.07.1981 gave wrong report for undue benefit of M/s Emkay Glass works Firozabad and it was clear that from the connection given in the name of M/s Rathi Glass Art, the Electricity was being consumed by M/s Emkay Glass works.
(3.) THE Inquiry Officer on 15.02.1984 himself inspected the site and found that both the consumers were in the same premises and the purpose of granting the connection to M/s Rathi Glass Art was to benefit M/s Emkay Glass works Firozabad. There was already connection of 285 horse power with M/s. Emkay Glass works and additional connection of 80 horse power granted to M/s Rathi Glass Art was only and only for the benefit of M/s Emkay Glass works and petitioner was hand in glove with the consumer in this regard. Petitioner in the supplementary affidavit stated that the main charge against him was that in the same premises another concern with the name of Emkay Glass was running, which was consuming the electricity against the connection granted to M/s Rathi Glass Arts in the same premises and petitioner was instrumental in grant of electricity in the name of M/s Rathi Glass Art. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been stated that it was illegally done by the petitioner in order to give undue benefit to M/s Emkay Glass and cause loss to the Electricity Board. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, petitioner has also stated that electricity connection in favour of M/s Rathi Glass Art was released by the order of Executive Engineer. Electricity connection is released on the basis of the report of engineer concerned. If on the basis of wrong report given by the petitioner, connection was sanctioned, petitioner is squarely liable for the same. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in his oral arguments as well as written submissions was that it was not the petitioner but other engineers/employees, who were responsible for the illegal grant of connection to M/s Rathi Glass Arts or at least along with petitioner, others were also involved. Writ petition against termination order is not in the nature of appeal. If the finding of misconduct is based upon such material, which may justify such finding, then writ court is not supposed to interfere in the findings. There was ample evidence on record to justify the finding of misconduct of the petitioner. In spite of more than due opportunities granted to the petitioner, petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. On one date, four officers assembled on the request of the petitioner but he did not examine any one of them. This shows utter callousness of the petitioner. As the petitioner did not adduce any evidence and did not cross-examine the departmental witnesses, hence he cannot be heard to say that he was not provided opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was required to put up his defence before enquiry officer. Having failed to do so in spite of repeated opportunities, he cannot be permitted to put forward his defence in the writ petition. On the material available before the enquiry officer, no other inference except the inference that charge stood fully proved against the petitioner could be drawn. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.;