The employer must justify the dismissal order by leading evidence before the Labour Court if no inquiry has been conducted or if the inquiry is found to be defective.

Rajesh Balia, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 012.1999 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 992/1996. The writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur on 03.01.1996 was dismissed by the Judgment under appeal.

2. The facts leading to this stage of litigation are that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed at the appellant Bank as LDC vide order dated 01.01.1981. The respondent got married to an Army Officer in 1986, who was posted outside.

3. Annexure-1 filed alongwith the writ petition a charge-sheet dated 09.09.1987 was issued to the respondent. From the perusal of the charge-sheet it appears that during the period October, November and December, 1986, respondent had availed leave to be with her husband and while she was on sanctioned leave upto 31.03.1987, she applied for extension of leave on 03.04.1987.

4. After giving the background, which led to the issuance of charge-sheet, the charges levelled against the respondent were that she is continuing on leave w.e.f. 01.04.1987 voluntarily and that she is in habit of remaining absent without sanctioned leave from which it is inferred that the respondent is not wiling to work and is availing leave for gaining unfair benefit somehow, which amounts to insubordination and causing financial loss to the Bank.

5. After issuing the charge-sheet, the respondent was dismissed from service vide order dated 05.02.1988. The order was prefaced with certain difficulties faced by the appellant-bank in effecting the service of memorandum of charges on the respondent. The reasons which weighed for passing the dismissal order were that the memorandum of charges could be served on the respondent only at 4.00 PM on 212.1987 at Railway Station, Jalore, that she left the bank in the morning of 212.1987 for delaying the enquiry, that notwithstanding service of letter dated 212.1987, she has not disclosed the reason of her absence on that date nor she has replied the earlier memorandum of charges and by doing this, she has obstructed the work of the bank and has disobeyed the orders of the bank. It was also stated that earlier also by remaining absent from 210.1986 to 13.03.1987, she has obstructed the working of the bank and after 14.03.1987 she left the Bank and returned only on 212.1987 and on 212.1987 she has remained absent. With these statements, the disciplinary authority concluded that the respondent is not interested in working with the bank and she has never maintained discipline, which has resulted in financial loss to the bank, therefore, the services of the respondent is being terminated w.e.f. 05.02.1988.

6. Dismissal of services of respondent led to raising of industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court vide notification dated 10.07.1991. It was a common ground before the Labour Court that the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 were adopted by the bank for taking disciplinary proceeding and that no inquiry in terms of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 was conducted by the appellant-bank. It was claimed by the respondent-workman that she did not receive the memorandum of charges dated 212.1987 and 09.09.1987 and that all allegations levelled against her were groundless.

7. The appellant-bank has urged that the memorandum of charges dated 09.09.1987 was served on the respondent-workmen on 16.09.1987. When the respondent-workman did not reply to the charge-sheet dated 09.09.1987 memorandum of charges was again sent on 212.1987 to the respondent and the same was served on her by hand. Since, the respondent has not replied the memorandum of charges, it was assumed that she has nothing to say against the memorandum of charges and on that premise the order of removal from service was passed in accordance with the law and was justified.

8. It is also common ground that neither the appellant-bank, while filing reply, claimed any opportunity to