Patna High Court
Dhananjay Kumar SinghversusNational Thermal Power Corporation, Kahalgaon
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The High Court held that there was no violation of natural justice and the disciplinary and appellate orders were valid, dismissing the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, a Junior Operator at NTPC Kahalgaon, challenged his removal and the rejection of his appeal, alleging violations of natural justice, specifically denial of cross‑examination and that Clause 8 of the recruitment advertisement was optional for him. He also contended that his prior employment as a cluster teacher and the ITI degree obtained during that employment were improperly considered. The respondent NTPC argued that the disciplinary process complied with the rules, the degree was obtained without sanction and thus unusable, and that Clause 8 was mandatory. The Court examined whether the disciplinary authority had breached principles of natural justice and whether the advertisement requirement was optional. It held that the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross‑examine, that Clause 8 is mandatory, and that the degree could not be used, concluding there was no legal infirmity in the orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner the right to cross‑examine witnesses
- Whether Clause 8 of the recruitment advertisement requiring details of prior experience is mandatory or optional
- Whether an ITI degree obtained during the petitioner’s prior employment can be relied upon for eligibility
- Whether the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- natural justice
- cross‑examination
- appointment eligibility
- ITI degree
- service rules
- NTPC
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9453 of 2022
======================================================
Dhananjay Kumar Singh S/o- Sri Ram Chandra Singh, R/o- Vill- At and P.O.-
Balbadda, P.S.- Balbadda, District- Godda, (Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. National Thermal Power Corporation, Kahalgaon through it is Chief General
Manager, Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur.
2. The Chief General Manager, National Thermal Power Corporation,
Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur.
3. The General Manager(O and M-FM), National Thermal Power Corporation,
Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur.
4. The Regional Executive Director (East-1), National Thermal Power
Corporation, Eastern Region-1, Headquarter at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash
Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna.
5. The Director, Human Resource-cum-Appellate Authority, Scope Complare,
Lodi Road, National Thermal Power Corporation, New Delhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the Respondent-National Thermal Power
Corporation.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ/s, direction/s, order/s to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
2/12
respondents for the following relief/s:-
“I. To quash the order dated
07.02.2022 issued by the Regional
Executive Director (East-1), Patna
(Disciplinary Authority) (Annexure-
1) whereby and whereunder the
petitioner has been removed from the
post of Junior Operator (W-3) Fuel
Management, National Thermal
Power Corporation, Kahalgoan,
Bhagalpur.
II. To quash the order dated
17.05.2022 issued by the Director
(HR), NTPC, New Delhi (Appellate
Authority) (Annexure-2) whereby and
whereunder the appeal preferred by
the petitioner against order dated
07.02.2022 (Annexure-1) has been
rejected.
III. To reinstate the petitioner on the
post of Junior Operator (W-3) Fuel
Management, National Thermal
Power Corporation Kahalgoan,
Bhagalpur with all consequential
and monetary benefits. And for any
other relief(s) for which the
petitioner may be found entitled in
the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
3/12
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was working in the N.T.P.C., Kahalgaon as Junior
Operator. His appointment has been made by virtue of
Advertisement No. 1 of 2015. Counsel submits that after
following the due process of law, he was appointed initially on
the probation period of one year i.e. on 30.04.2016 which ended
on 30.04.2017. The petitioner was working to the full
satisfaction of the authorities. Counsel further submits that a
memorandum of article of charge dated 22.03.2021 has been
served upon the petitioner in which three charges have been
alleged. He submits that the petitioner submitted his reply in
response of the said charges on 03.04.2021 and denied all the
charges alleged. But, the Disciplinary Authority did not satisfied
from the same and vide order dated 20.04.2021, appointed the
DGM (Vigilance) NTPC, Kahalgaon as Presenting Officer and
AGM (HR) NTPC, Kahalgaon as Enquiry Officer. Counsel
submits that on various dates, the proceeding was conducted,
particularly on 06.04.2021, 14.07.2021, 23.08.2021 and
30.08.2021. He submits that on all the dates, hearing took place
through virtual mode. Counsel further submits that the
opportunity of cross examination was requested by the
petitioner, but not been provided by the Enquiry Officer. He
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
4/12
submits that only one witness has been examined and on
30.08.2021, the petitioner has requested the Enquiry Authority
to provide the Defence Assistant in order to defend his case.
And on the request of the petitioner, the Defence Assistant was
provided to him on 24.09.2021. Counsel submits that the
petitioner specifically requested the Enquiry Authority to add
two witnesses in support of his case, but his request was turned
down.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the date of the hearing was fixed and only one
witness appeared as witness and opportunity of cross
examination even after specific request by the petitioner, has not
been granted to him. He submits that in the memorandum, list of
four witnesses were provided to the petitioner, but only one
witness was examined by the Enquiry Officer. He further
submits that vide order dated 17.11.2021, the Presenting Officer
submitted the brief to the Enquiry Officer in which all the
charges found proved against the petitioner. Counsel submits
that as per the direction of Enquiry Officer on 03.12.2021, the
petitioner submitted his written submissions against the brief of
Presenting Officer dated 17.11.2021. Thereafter, vide order
dated 17.12.2021, the Regional E.D.(Estt.) NTPC issued second
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
5/12
show cause along with enquiry report and directed the petitioner
to submit his response to the same. The petitioner submitted his
reply to the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority on
30.12.2021 and requested for exoneration from all the charges
alleged. Counsel further submits that the final order has been
passed on 07.02.2022, which was subsequently, challenged in
the appeal and the appellate order has been passed on
17.05.2022 by which the appeal of the petitioner was rejected.
Counsel submits that it is true that opportunity has been
provided to the petitioner according to rule, but, in-spite of four
witnesses, only one witness was examined and opportunity of
cross examination has not been granted to him. He submits that
it is due to this reason, the proceeding is bad in law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the appointment has taken place by virtue of
Advertisement no. 1 of 2015 (Annexure-3) and in the said
advertisement in Application cum Bio Data Form, its Clause 8 is
a column which indicates about the experience if any, and this
Clause 8 contains six columns i.e. name & address of the
employer, designation, employment period, scale of pay and
drawn salary, reason of leaving and nature of work. Counsel
submits that the petitioner was basically a Cluster Teacher and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
6/12
there was no pay scale or salary fixed for him and he was also
not getting monetary salary. Whenever the money comes, he
used to receive the salary. Therefore, his contention is that since,
the petitioner was a cluster teacher, hence, Clause 8 of the said
advertisement’s column shall not for him and it is due to this
reason, the petitioner has made the said column blank. Counsel
further submits that in the charge memo, there were four
witnesses, but the Enquiry Officer reached on the finding only
by virtue of examination of one witness and rest witnesses were
not even examined. Moreover, opportunity of cross examination
has not been provided to the petitioner, in-spite of the specific
request. It is due to this reason, he submits that the allegation of
imputations of misconduct mentioned in the charge memo are
not sustainable in the eye of law. Counsel, therefore, concludes
that when the allegation in charge memo are not sustainable in
eye of law, then automatically any finding on a non-sustainable
charge memo either in the form of enquiry report or in the form
of disciplinary order or in the form of appellate order, shall also
not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, he submits that the
writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner and the
impugned orders be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent-
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
7/12
National Thermal Power Corporation, on the other hand,
submits that in this case, neither there is violation of principles
of natural justice nor there is any violation of any rule of the
departmental proceeding or allegation of exorbitant punishment.
Counsel submits that the basic eligibility of the petitioner for the
appointment on the basis of the advertisement which has been
made as a special recruitment drive was degree of ITI. He
submits that the period during which the petitioner has obtained
the degree, he was admittedly in service and moreover, the place
of his posting in the service and the school/institution from
where he has obtained the degree which was the basic eligibility
of the appointment was 300 kms away. Counsel further submits
that in the charge memo, it has been specifically alleged that the
petitioner has concealed his employment with Jharkhand State
Education Department at the time of sending application for job
in NTPC and subsequently at the time of joining. Thus, he
deliberately suppressed the information regarding his previous
employment while securing job in NTPC. The further allegation
in the charge memo against the petitioner is that the petitioner
pursued ITI regular course during Year 2008-2010 from Asha-
ITI, Godda while in employment with Jharkhand State
Education Department, Bokaro from year 2006 to 2016, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
8/12
is not tenable, as Godda is approximately 300 kms. away from
Bokaro. Therefore, the charge memo contend that the ITI
certificate to secure employment in NTPC, be treated as fake.
7. Learned counsel for the NTPC further submits
that the service of the petitioner during his employment in the
NTPC has been guided by the rule framed which deals with
service conditions relating to NTPC employees. He submits that
after issuance of charge memo, reply was demanded and upon
receiving the reply, the matter was recommended before the
Enquiry Officer. The Presenting Officer was appointed and the
enquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioner granting
opportunity to file documents, examination and cross
examination. Counsel submits that the contention of the
petitioner is wrong to say that opportunity of cross examination
has not been provided to him. He submits that in the second
show cause, it has been categorically taken the plea in Clause
(C) of Annexure-11, where it has been admitted by the petitioner
that “I am Junior employee whereas he (management witness)
is much more senior employee of NTPC and did not dare to
cross examine the said influential designated official who was
earlier in Vigilance Cell of NTPC.” Counsel submits that in the
light of the acceptance made by the petitioner and his argument
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
9/12
before this Court that opportunity for cross examination has not
been provided, is not correct. He further submits that the
argument of the petitioner is also wrong that the petitioner was
working as Cluster Teacher. It is a specific case of the
respondent that the petitioner was in full time employment. It
may be adhoc, but he was receiving the monthly salary and
according to his own pleadings as well as the documents and
correspondance made by the State of Jharkhand, it become
crystal clear that he continued in the Jharkhand State Education
Department as a Teacher since 2006 to 2016. Therefore, he
submits that the Clause 8 column of the advertisement which
according to the petitioner is optional or not to be filled, is also
not correct and this pleading may not be accepted. He further
submits that after submission of the enquiry report, second show
cause has been demanded by the Disciplinary Authority, the
reply has come and the Disciplinary Authority in his decision
has duly considered the reply as well as the report and then
passed the final order. The Appellate Authority has also
considered every aspect of the matter and then passed the
appellate order. Therefore, he submits that there is no need of
any interference in the same.
8. After completion of the argument, this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
10/12
specifically put question to the counsel for the petitioner again
that, is there any violation of principles of natural justice, or
violation of any disciplinary rule in the present departmental
proceeding? The answer has come that it is not so. Only
appreciation has been made wrongly and therefore, he required
interference, particularly in the light of the submissions made by
him an opportunity was not granted for cross examination.
9. Upon hearing the parties and upon going
through the documents, particularly when no violation of
principles of natural justice has been raised and no violation of
any disciplinary rule, this Court is of the firm view that being
the High Court, the Court ought not to interfere in the finding of
the facts. But, since, counsel has specifically pleaded that
Clause 8 of the advertisement’s column is not necessary for him
to fill and it is due to this reason, he has not filled up and on the
question of not granting opportunity of cross examination, it is
necessary for this Court to answer.
9.1. The basic eligibility for the appointment in the
NTPC was degree of ITI. Admittedly, the period during which
the degree has been obtained, the petitioner was in service from
2006 to 2016, which is a full time course and he was also in full
time employment as well as drawn the salary during the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
11/12
period. This Court is of the firm view that this degree has been
obtained during the period of his employment without seeking
any sanction from his employer. In that case, the said degree
cannot be utilized for any purpose.
10. So far as the description about his employment
under Clause 8 of the advertisement was optional is concerned,
this Court is of the view that it is not optional, rather, it is
mandatory. Because, it is nowhere mentioned in Clause 8 about
permanent, temporary or optional. It is only the experience, if
any which includes name & address of the employer,
designation, employment period, scale of pay and drawn salary,
reason of leaving and nature of work. Therefore, this Court
cannot accept the argument made by the counsel for the
petitioner that Clause 8 was not mandatory for him.
11. So far as granting opportunity of cross
examination is concerned, Clause (C) of the second show cause
filed by the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority is itself
very much clear that opportunity was granted to him to cross
examine, but he could not dare to cross examine, only due to the
reason that the witness appeared before the Enquiry Officer is a
high official. In the eye of law, this point is also not sustainable
in favour of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2022 dt.31-01-2026
12/12
12. For the reasons mentioned above, this Court
finds that there is no need for any interference in this matter, as
the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority have been made in accordance with law.
Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.