Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju and R. B. Misra, JJ.
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
U.P.CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 4640 Of 1999
Decided On : 05/08/2001
Enquiry - Termination Order - The court held that in cases where a major punishment is proposed to be imposed, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests it or not. The impugned termination order was passed without holding an enquiry, which is illegal and was quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was challenging the termination order dated 23. 7. 1998 and the appellant order dated 29. 10. 98. The petitioner, a Deputy Manager, was charge-sheeted and gave a reply, but no date for the enquiry was communicated. The impugned dismissal order was passed without holding an enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned termination order was passed without holding an enquiry, which was deemed illegal, and therefore set aside both the impugned orders.
Issues: Challenge to termination order and appellant order, lack of communication of date for enquiry, legality of termination without holding an enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases where a major punishment is proposed to be imposed, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests it or not. It is necessary to issue a notice to the employee intimating the date, time, and place of the enquiry.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and no order as to costs was given.
( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned termination order dated 23. 7. 1998 and the appellant order dated 29. 10. 98. The petitioner was employed as Deputy Manager of U. P. Co-operative Spinning Mills, Kanpur. He was charge-sheeted by order dated 24. 6. 98 vide annexure 15 to the petition. He submitted his reply dated 5. 7. 98 vide Annexure 17 to the petition. Thereafter it is alleged in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit that after the petitioner gave reply he was not communicated any date for the enquiry and straight away a show cause notice dated 9. 7. 98 was issued to him vide Annexure 19 to the writ petition. The petitioner gave his reply dated 19. 7. 98 to the show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned dismissal order dated 23. 7. 98 was passed vide Annexure 21 to the petition.
( 3 ) A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it has been alleged in para 4 that the petitioner was given charge-sheet and he was allowed to see the required documents but since he did not request for any date for the enquiry no date was fixed. In our opinion this is not the correct way in which the respondents should have proceeded. Even if the petitioner had not requested for an oral enquiry yet it was incumbent upon the respondents to have issued a notice fixed date, time and place of the enquiry and naming the enquiry officer.
( 4 ) IN cases where a major punishment proposed to be imposed an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee request, for it or not. For this it is necessary to issue a notice to the employee concerned intimating him date, time and place of the enquiry as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chcndra Sharma v. Managing Director, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541 against which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16. 8. 2000.
( 5 ) FOLLOWING the aforesaid decision we are of the view that the impugned termination order was passed without holding enquiry against the petitioner which is illegal and it is hereby quashed. Both the impugned orders are set aside.
( 6 ) THE writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
