1996 Supreme(Raj) 1394
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
R.R.Yadav, J.
Deepak Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Petition No. 3310 of 1990.
Decided On : 27-11-1996
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the administration and to produce his own defence witnesses.
Headnote:
DISMISSAL ORDER - OIL (INDIA) LIMITED - JURISDICTION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DOMESTIC ENQUIRY - CROSS-EXAMINATION - SUMMONING DEFENCE WITNESSES - EXTRANEOU FACTORS - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - REINSTATEMENT - COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an employee of Oil (India) Limited, challenged the legality and validity of his dismissal order and the appellate order upholding the dismissal. The petitioner alleged that the dismissal order was passed by an authority lower in rank to the appointing authority, that he was not provided with charge-sheet and materials in support thereof, that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing, and that the orders impugned were passed against the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the dismissal order passed by an authority lower in rank to the appointing authority was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court also held that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing as he was not provided with copies of the statements of witnesses examined ex parte behind his back, and his request to summon defence witnesses was turned down by the enquiry officer. The Court further held that the appellate authority failed to consider crucial questions of law and fact and passed a non-speaking order.
Issues: 1. Whether the dismissal order passed by an authority lower in rank to the appointing authority was legal and valid? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing? 3. Whether the appellate authority failed to consider crucial questions of law and fact and passed a non-speaking order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the dismissal order passed by an authority lower in rank to the appointing authority was illegal and without jurisdiction, as the authority lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass such order. 2. The Court held that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing as he was not provided with copies of the statements of witnesses examined ex parte behind his back, and his request to summon defence witnesses was turned down by the enquiry officer. The Court held that the principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the administration and to produce his own defence witnesses. 3. The Court held that the appellate authority failed to consider crucial questions of law and fact and passed a non-speaking order, which was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned dismissal order and appellate order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back-wages and all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
1. - In the instant writ petition, the petitioner questions legality and validity of his dismissal order dated 23.1.90 Annx.29 passed by respondent No. 2 and older dated 19.4.90 Annx.33 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing his appeal.
2. The aforesaid two orders have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that he was appointed by the General Manager (respondent No. 3) whereas dismissal order has been passed by the Superintending Engineer (Drilling) (respondent No. 2) who is admittedly lower in rank to respondent No. 3. No charge-sheet and materials in support thereof have been supplied during domestic enquiry which has caused serious prejudice to him. He was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing and the orders impugned have been passed against the principles of natural justice and fair play.
3. The factual genesis of the present case has a chequered history. It is alleged that the petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1060 of 1989 before this Court seeking a relief to quash the order of promotion dated 1.12.89 passed by respondent Company promoting illegally to Shri R.K. Goyal and Shri Magha Ram, both juniors to the petitioner.
4. In the aforesaid writ petition, in paragraphs 9 and 10, serious allegations of mala fide were made by the petitioner against the officers of Oil (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the instant writ petition that the petitioner was pressurised to withdraw the aforesaid writ petition by Shri Deependra Sharma, Superintending Engineer (Inquiry Officer in the present case) and when he expressed his inability to yield to the pressure, a false case of misconduct was concocted against him alleging that he along with process server of the Court went to deliver the notices in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1060 of 1989 to Shri Y.K. Mishra of the Accounts Department. Shri Y.K. Mishra went to Shri N.K. Bhatt, Superintending Accounts Officer to seek his advice to receive the said notices then the petitioner entered in his room and started shouting by using abusive language and made an attempt to assault them in presence of process server of the Court. The allegations made in the present case against the petitioner are evident from the show cause notice, a copy whereof is filed as Annx. 1 to the writ petition.
5. After service of notices on the respondents, they filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition. It' is averred in the counter affidavit that the orders impugned passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 are perfectly legal and valid and these impugned orders have been passed after following the principles of natural justice. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner either in holding domestic enquiry or in passing dismissal order against him. According to the answering- respondents, the facts of the present case do not require interference of this Court by issuing a prerogative writ making the orders impugned ineffective and inoperative.
6. After service of counter affidavit, the petitioner filed a rejoinder denying the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
7. After exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits between the parties, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 30.10.95 holding that the petitioner has got an alternative efficacious remedy before the Labour Court. In support of his aforesaid order dated 30.10.95 the learned Single Judge of this Court placed-reliance on a Full Bench decision of five learned Judges of this Court in Gopi Lal Teli v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1995(1) WLN 300 : 1995(1) WLC 01 .
8. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.10.95, the petitioner preferred a special appeal under the Rules of the Court before a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble the then Acting Chief Justice (now Chief Justice) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.G. Palshikar, J. an
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
