U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER versus VIRENDRA LAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 03-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 314 
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER 
v. 
VIRENDRA LAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. 
(Civil Appeal No.8949 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 3, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
I 
Service Law - Misconduct - Punishment - Imposition of, 
by higher/ appellate authority - Justification - Held: A higher 
C authority may pass order imposing punishment, if the right of 
appeal is not taken away - If the appellate authority passes 
order as the primary authority and there is provision for further 
appeal or revision or review, it cannot be said that the said 
order suffers from any illegality - In the case at hand, the 
D Chairman was the competent authority to pass order of 
punishment against the delinquent employee, while appeal/ 
representation from the order of the Chairman lay before the 
UPSEB - However, by virtue of the order of punishment 
having been passed by the UPSEB itself, remedy of appeal 
E was denied to the delinquent employee and consequently, the 
Tribunal and the High Court were justified in setting aside the 
order of UPSEB - U.P. State Electricity Board (Officers and 
Servants) (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975 -
Regulation 6. 
F 
'V', the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, 
was an Assistant Engineer in the U.P. State Electricity 
Board (UPSEB). He had released electricity to one 
consumer beyond the approved estimate as a 
consequence of which wrongful loss was caused to 
G UPSEB. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against 
'V'. The inquiry committee commenced enquiry. 
Meanwhile 'V' stood superannuated, but the proceedings 
continued and, eventually, the inquiry report was served 
H 
314 
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. VIRENDRA LAL 315 
(DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. 
on 'V'. Considering the submissions put forth by 'V' in his 
A 
representation, the UPSEB held him guilty of misconduct 
and ordered deduction of 10% amount of the pension 
payable to him. 
'V' preferred petition before the State Public Service 
Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the power to deal with 
the report of the inquiry committee vested in the 
Chairman of the UPSEB under regulation 6(4) of U.P. 
State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) 
(Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975 but in his case 
C 
as the punishment had been imposed by the UPSEB, he 
had been deprived of the right of appeal. The order 
passed by UPSEB was set aside by the Tribunal. The 
judgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court, 
and therefore the present appeal. 
B 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. Regulation 6 of the U.P. State Electricity 
Board (Officers and Servants) (Conditions of Service) 
Regulations, 1975 deals with constitution of Committee 
E 
to enquire into cases. Sub-regulation (4) of the said 
Regulation empowers the Chairman to deal with the 
report and recommendations of the Inquiry Committee in 
accordance with the relevant Regulations and pass final 
orders in respect of officers upto the rank of 
Superintending Engineer. 'V' retired from service as an 
Assistant Engineer which rank is lower than the 
Superintending Engineer. Hence, the Chairman was 
authorized to pass the order of punishment. Sub-
regulation (5) of Regulation 6 makes it clear that if an 
order is passed by the Chairman, an appeal or G 
representation, as the case may be, lies to the Board. In 
any case it is subject to challenge in the hierarchical 
system of the UPSEB. [Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12) [320-C, F-
G; 321-F-G] 
H 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
2. A higher authority may pass an order imposing a 
punishment and the same would withstand scrutiny if the 
right of appeal is not taken away. That apart, if the 
appellate authority passes an order as the primary 
authority and there is provision for further appeal or 
B revision or review it cannot be said that the said order 
suffers from any illegality. In the case at hand, there is no 
denial of the fact that the UPSEB passed the order for 
deduction of 10% pension from the delinquent employee. 
Under the Regulations, there is a stipulation that an 
c appeal or representation, as the case may be, from the 
order of the Chairman shall lie to the UPSEB. The 
Regulation clearly provides that in case of an Assistant 
Engineer the Chairman is the competent authority to pass 
the order of punishment and, therefore, by virtue of the 
0 order passed by the UPSEB, remedy of appeal was 
denied to the delinquent employe·e. Under these 
circumstanc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.