Dhananjay Kumar Singh vs National Thermal Power Corporation, ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 226 Patna

Patna High Court

Dhananjay Kumar Singh vs National Thermal Power Corporation, ... on 31 January, 2026

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

         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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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