HC Quashes Junior Engineer’s Dismissal Over Due Process Violation

Case Details: Parmeshwar Gorain vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. [2026] 185 taxmann.com 839 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.J. Munir, J.
• Manu Mishra for the Petitioner.
• Abhishek Srivastava & K.K. Rao for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, a Junior Engineer of the respondent power corporation, was arrested in a trap case for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification from a consumer for the installation of a 25 KVA transformer.

A departmental charge-sheet was issued alleging that the petitioner had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the consumer and was caught red-handed. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges.

Thereafter, the Inquiry Committee fixed a date for personal hearing, pursuant to which the petitioner appeared, his statement was recorded, and certain documents were supplied to him.

Subsequently, the Inquiry Committee submitted its report holding the charges to be proved, and the Managing Director passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. It was observed that the fixing of a date, time, and place for holding the inquiry did not merely contemplate recording the delinquent employee’s statement and hearing him personally before the Inquiry Committee. Rather, such date, time, and place were required to be fixed for the purpose of permitting the establishment to lead evidence in support of the charges.

The delinquent employee could have been called upon to adduce evidence in his defence only after the establishment had examined its witnesses and produced all supporting evidence. Further, the witnesses of the establishment were required to be made available to the delinquent employee for cross-examination.

Similarly, if the delinquent employee produced evidence in his defence, including witnesses, such witnesses were also required to be made available to the establishment for cross-examination. However, no such procedure was followed in the present case.

High Court Held

Accordingly, the High Court held that the impugned order of dismissal was liable to be quashed, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service forthwith, while granting liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner on the basis of the same charge-sheet.

List of Cases Referred to

• State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB) (para 19)
• Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P. 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) (para 19)
• State of U.P. v. Kishori Lal 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB) (para 19)
• State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh 2008 taxmann.com 10993 (SC) (para 19)
• Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank [2009] 2008 taxmann.com 11735 (SC) (para 19)
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [2010] 2 SCC 772 (para 19)
• Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. [2025] 11 taxmann.com 1268 (SC) (para 20).