JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri S.C.Srivastava assisted by Sri Mehboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Madhu Tandon, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. On 10.3.2015, this Court heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and passed the following orders : “Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award dated 20.8.2014 passed by respondent No. 2 in Adjudication Case No. 26 of 1999, whereby, the order of termination has been set aside and the services of respondent No. 1 has been reinstated alongwith payment of full salary for the period 1.8.1996 to 28.8.1998 and 10% of back wages for the period from 29.8.1998 till he attained the age of superannuation in July 2007. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that according to the respondent No. 1, he was appointed as mate by the petitioners on 1.1.1970 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Sub Station Operator on 1.2.1974. By the order of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar, dated 19.10.1996, the respondent No. 1 was doing the work of taking meter reading of consumers of Kandhla area, since November 1996 and used five reading books, which were deposited by him in the department of the petitioner. He was again directed to work vide order dated 5.11.1997. Thereafter, he was directed by the authorities to continue to work at Sub Station “Bhoora” on the post of Sub Station Operator as no other employee was posted. He was not relieved from Sub Station Bhoora. However, his salary was not paid w.e.f. 1.8.1996 and as such he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26884 of 1997, which was finally disposed of by an order dated 4.9.1997 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within one month. Thereafter, a representation was submitted by the respondent No. 1 alongwith a copy of the said order of this Court on 9.9.1997. However, the respondent No. 2 has not decided the representation of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 again filed a writ petition No. 393 of 1998, which was disposed of by an order dated 19.1.1998. Thereafter, a representation was submitted by the respondent No. 1 alongwith a copy of the said order of this Court on 9.9.1997. However, the respondent No. 2 has not decided the representation of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 again filed a writ petition No. 393 of 1998, which was disposed of by an order dated 19.1.1998. By the said order this Court again directed the petitioners to decide the representation of respondent No. 1, but the authority concerned again did not decide the representation of the respondent No. 1 and instead, without making any inquiry; terminated the services of respondent No. 1 vide order dated 29.8.1998 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 has not deliberately joined the service despite notices issued to him. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the respondent No. 2, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 26 of 1999 and has been decided by the impugned order dated 20.8.2014. In the impugned order, the respondent No. 2 has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent No. 1 was working during the period from 1.8.1996 to 28.8.1998. The order dated 28.8.1998 passed by respondent No. 2 terminating the services of the respondent No. 1 was wholly arbitrary and illegal. A finding has also been recorded that neither any proceeding was initiated nor any inquiry has been conducted under Rule 3 (1) of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) (Condition of Service) Regulation 1975. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent No. 1. Two applications were moved by respondent No. 1 for summoning the official records of the petitioners for the relevant period containing description of work done by respondent No. 1 as well as the orders of his posting etc., but the petitioners despite number of opportunities being afforded, the respondent No. 1 did not produce those documents. As a secondary evidence, the respondent No. 1 produced photostat copies of several documents which have not been disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners have not even disputed in their written statement and the fact that the respondent No. 1 had worked from 1.8.1996 to 28.8.1998. As a secondary evidence, the respondent No. 1 produced photostat copies of several documents which have not been disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners have not even disputed in their written statement and the fact that the respondent No. 1 had worked from 1.8.1996 to 28.8.1998. After detail discussions on the conduct of the petitioners as well as the evidences on record, the respondent No. 2 recorded findings of fact that the termination of services of respondent No. 1 by the petitioners was wholly arbitrary, improper and illegal. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order/award dated 10.8.2014, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned award has been passed without noticing Clause (e) of the second proviso to Rule 3(1) of the aforesaid Regulation of 1975, which provides that where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. Relying upon this rule, he submits that since, the petitioners are satisfied that the respondent No. 1 was absent from duty w.e.f. 1.8.1996, and therefore, his termination from service is wholly justified. Prima facie, I find that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly misconceived. Perusal of the impugned award shows that the petitioners were directed to produce number of evidences in the form of official records, but they deliberately did not produce before the respondent No. 1. They have also not passed any order on the representation of the respondent No. 1, despite the orders of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 393 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 27884 of 1997. It has not been disputed that the respondent No. 1 was working at sub station Bhoora. The respondent No. 2 passed the impugned award directing the petitioners to pay salary to respondent No. 1 for the period 1.8.1996 to 28.8.1998 during which he actually worked. For the remaining period till the date of attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners to pay 10% of the wages to the respondent No. 1. Prima facie, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned award. For the remaining period till the date of attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners to pay 10% of the wages to the respondent No. 1. Prima facie, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned award. On the other hand, the action of the petitioners authorities, prima facie, appears to be highly arbitrary and illegal. They did not comply with the orders passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions and the orders passed by respondent No. 2 directing them to produce in evidence certain official records. Under the circumstances, prima facie, I find that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost to be recovered from personal salary/assets of the erring officers, who have acted in a grossly arbitrary and illegal manner and deliberately did not produce documents before the respondent No. 2. Before any such order may be passed it appears necessary to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to file a personal affidavit of petitioner No. 1 explaining their conduct. The said affidavit shall be filed by the petitioner No. 1 within a week from today after thorough scrutiny in the matter. As prayed, put up on 18.3.2015.” 3. An affidavit of Sri Subhash, Executive Engineer, electricity Distribution Division-II, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar dated 25.3.2015 on behalf of the petitioner was filed on 26.3.2015. 4. In paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the affidavit it is stated that the impugned award dated 20.8.2014 passed in Adjudication Case No. 26 of 1999 has already been implemented by the petitioners and as such the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. However, looking into the facts of the case and that the order dated 10.3.2015 was not complied with by the petitioners, this Court on 26.3.2015 directed the Managing Director of the Corporation to file his personal affidavit and to show-cause why the order dated26.3.2015 has not been complied with. Today, in compliance of the order dated 26.3.2015 an affidavit on behalf of the petitioners has been filed. In paragraph-3 of the affidavit filed today, by the petitioners it has been stated as under : “That in pursuance to the above mentioned order, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. has framed guidelines for handling litigation and compliance of orders of this Hon’ble Court and all other Courts of law. The guidelines were issued on 13.4.2015 to all the subsidiary companies. In paragraph-3 of the affidavit filed today, by the petitioners it has been stated as under : “That in pursuance to the above mentioned order, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. has framed guidelines for handling litigation and compliance of orders of this Hon’ble Court and all other Courts of law. The guidelines were issued on 13.4.2015 to all the subsidiary companies. The true copy of the guidelines of 13.4.2015 issued by the M.D. of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow is annexed with this affidavit and marked as Annexure 2.” 6. The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. has taken a policy decision dated 13.4.2015 (Annexure-2 to the affidavit dated 15.4.2015) as under : ^^mRrj izns'k ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM 'kfDr Hkou] 14&v'kksd ekxZ] y[kuÅ la[;k 1239&vkS0la0@ fnukad 13-4-2015 vkS0fo0iz0@49&tu@89 izcU/k funs'kd] fo|qr forj.k fuxe fy0] if'pekWapy] esjB@iwokZapy] okjk.klh@nf{k.kkWapy] vkxjk@ e/;kWapy] y[kuÅ@dsLdks] dkuiqj fo"k; & Je U;k;ky; ds oknksa dh izHkkoh iSjoh djus gsrq uhfrxr fu.kZ; ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] v/kksgLrk{kjh ds laKku esa vk;k gS fd Je U;k;ky; esa py jgs oknksa dh iSjoh [k.Mksa }kjk ugha dh tk jgh gS rFkk le; ls fyf[kr izfrmRrj] xokgh ,oa lk{; Hkh ek0 Je U;k;ky;@miJek;qDr ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;s tk jgs gSaA bu =qfV;ksa ds QyLo:i okn foHkkx ds fo:) fu.khZr gks jgs gSaA vf/kdka'k ,d i{kh; vkns'k Hkh ikfjr gks jgs gSaA bl lEcU/k esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ;kfpdk nkf[ky dj ek0 Je U;k;ky; ,oa miJek;qDr }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ;ksa dks pqukSrh Hkh nh tk jgh gSA ;g dnkfi mfpr ugha gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa fjV ;kfpdkvksa dh lquokbZ esa bls vR;Ur xEHkhjrk ls fy;k tk jgk gS rFkk nks"kh vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus gsrq funsz'k Hkh tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSaA fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 13888@2015 vf?k'kklh vfHk;Urk] m0iz0fo|qr ifj"kn o vU; cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k ,oa vU;esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 24-3-2015 dks fuEu vkns'k ikfjr fd;s gSa& Number of cases are coming before this Court challenging the award passed by the labour Court in which it is seen that as a matter of usual practice the petitions are not adducing any evidence before the labour Court and after the award is passed, they are filing the writ petition to challenge the award. This prima facie, indicates that the petitioners are deliberately not adducing evidences and allowing the award to be passed. In satisfaction of award public money is paid. This prima facie, indicates that the petitioners are deliberately not adducing evidences and allowing the award to be passed. In satisfaction of award public money is paid. Prima facie, there appears to be no sense responsibility of the officers of the petitioners in pursuing the cases in labour Court. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition that what action has been taken against those officers, who are guilty in not pursuing the matter and thus, guilty of not discharging their duties. Prima facie, there appears to be no sense responsibility of the officers of the petitioners in pursuing the cases in labour Court. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition that what action has been taken against those officers, who are guilty in not pursuing the matter and thus, guilty of not discharging their duties. mijksDr dks n`f"Vxr djrs gq;s Je U;k;ky; ls lEcfU/kr oknksa dh iSjoh gsrq uhfr fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS& 1- v/khuLFk lHkh [k.Mkf/kdkfj;ksa dks funsZf’kr djs fd os Je U;k;ky; ds oknksa dh iSjoh lqpk: :i ls djkus gsrq oknksa dh izR;sd frfFk;ksa ij U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj lHkh lEcfU/kr lk{;@vfHkys[k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsaA blds fy;s lEcfU/kr dk;kZy; lgk;d ,d jftLVj ij leLr oknksa dks vafdr djsaxs ftlls ;g lqfuf'pr gks lds fd izR;sd [k.M esa fdrus okn py jgs gSa rFkk mudh v|ru fLFkfr D;k gSA 2- oknksa dh iSjoh gsrq ukfer dkfeZd@dk;kZy; lgk;dksa dk nkf;Ro gksxk fd os oknksa dk ,d jftLVj cuk;saxsa rFkk blls izR;sd lquokbZ dh frfFk ij lEcfU/kr vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk dks laKkfur djkrs jgsxsaA vfèk'kklh vfHk;Urk izdj.kksa dks laKku esa ysdj jftLVj ij gLrk{kj djsaxsaA ;fn fdlh izdj.k esa iSjoh@lk{; ds vHkko esa dksbZ okn foHkkx ds fo:) fuf.kZr gksrk gS] ,oa dk;kZy; lgk;d }kjk vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk dks laKkfur ugha djk;k tkrk gS rks dk;kZy; lgk;d@dkfeZd iw.kZ :i ls mRrjnk;h gksxkA vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk }kjk laKkfur gksus ds ckn le; ls dk;Zokgh ugha djk;h tkrh gS rks vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk Hkh iw.kZ :i ls ftEesnkj gksxsaA 3- leLr oknksa dk fooj.k ekfld :i ls lEcfU/kr [k.M ds vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk vius e.My ds v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk dks miyC/k djk;sxsa rFkk vko';d gksus ij lEcfU/kr dkfeZd ds fo:) dk;Zokgh@vuq'kalk izsf”kr djsxsa rFkk v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk jftLVj esa vafdr oknksa dk vuqJo.k djds izR;sd okn ds fooj.k ds lEeq[k viuh fVIi.kh ds lkFk gLrk{kj djsxsaA 4- v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk }kjk mijksDr fooj.k ofj"B dkfeZd vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr dj mudk vfHker fy;k tk;sxk rFkk ofj"B dkfeZd vfèkdkjh vko';drkuqlkj er lEcfU/kr eq[; vfHk;Urk dks izsf"kr djsxsaA 5- v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk vius vius lHkh [k.Mksa dk fooj.k ladfyr dj izfr ekg eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼forj.k½ dks miyC/k djk;sxsa rFkk eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼forj.k½ }kjk bls fMLdke eq[;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA 6- Je U;k;ky; ds oknksa dh leh{kk izcU/k funs'kd dk;kZy; esa ofj"B dkfeZd vfèkdkjh@lgk;d fof/k vf/kdkjh@mifof/k vf/kdkjh }kjk la;qDr :i ls dh tk;sxhA budh rSukrh u gksus ij ;g leh{kk eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼iz'kklu½ djsaxsaA izR;sd ekg fMLdke ds lHkh [k.Mksa ds lEcfU/kr dk;kZy; lgk;dksa ds lkFk leh{kk cSBd lqfuf'pr dh tk;sxhA leh{kk mijkUr ;Fkk vko';d funsZ'k tkjh fd;s@djk;s tk;sxsaA 7- izcU/k funs'kd dk;kZy; ij Hkh Je U;k;ky;ksa dk fooj.k j[kk tk;sxk ftlds fy;s vko';d lalk/ku fMLdke ds izcU/k funs'kd miyC/k djk;sxsaA bu oknksa ds fu.kZ;ksa ds fdz;kUo;u gsrq dkjiksjs'ku ds vkns'k la[;k 551&iz0lq0&01@ikdkfy&2003&21iz0lq0@2001] fnukad 12-11-2003 }kjk fMLdke ds izcU/k funs'kd l{ke vf/kdkjh gSaA 8- vusd oknksa esa m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fy0 dks i{kdkjk cuk;k tkrk gS] tcfd m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fy0 ds vUrxZr ikWap forj.k dEifu;ksa dk vyx vyx vfLrRo gSA le; le; ij inuke Hkh ifjofrZr gq;s gSaA vr% lEcfU/kr [k.M ek0 U;k;ky;ksa esa izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj i{kdkjksa dks la'kksf/kr djk;sA 9- ;g ns[kk x;k gS fd vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds nks"kh bafxr djus ij fu/kkZfjr le; lhek esa vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh iw.kZ ugha gks ikrh gS rFkk nks"kh deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh lsokfuo`Rr dk gksus ds dkj.k foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ls le; lhek dk ykHk mBkrs gq;s eqDr gks tkrs gSaA ,sls esa l{ke vf/kdkfj;ksa dk nkf;Ro gksxk fd og fu/kkZfjr le; lhek esa vkjksih vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh dks vkjksi i= fuxZr djrs gq;s lsokfuo`Rr ds iwoZ@le; lhek esa gh vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj yh tk;A 10- fdlh Hkh Lrj ij f'kfHkyrk ik;s tkus ij lEcfU/kr vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ds fo:) dM+h vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxh rFkk fuxe ij iM+us okys foRrh; Hkkj dh olwyh nksf"k;ksa ls fofo/k vfxze Mkydj dh tk;sxhA d`i;k bls vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ le>rs gq;s mijksDr vkns'kksa dk dMkbZ ls vius v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa ls vuqikyu djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA Hkonh;] g0 vLi"V ¼,0ih0 feJ½ izcU/k funs'kd** 7. Thus, the petitioners have already taken a policy decision to make proper pairvi of cases before the Labour Courts and also provided for accountability of the Officers/employees of the Corporation for their negligence in discharge of their duties. 8. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed and the following directions are issued to the petitioners. (i) The Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. as well as Managing Directors of all its subsidiary companies engaged in the distribution of the electricity shall ensure strict compliance of the aforequoted policy decision dated 13.4.2015; (ii) The petitioner No. 1 shall enforce this policy decision dated 13.4.2015 with respect to all cases filed by or against the Corporation or any of its subsidiary companies before any statutory authority or Court of law; 9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is dismissed. ———————