Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. M. Sahai, J.
BAJRANG PRASAD SRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
U.P.PARIYOJANA PRABANDHAK - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 15270 Of 1995
Decided On : 05/04/2000
Suspension Allowance - Labour Dispute - U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. - Section 4 of the standing order - Non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension for not working or reporting for work - Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution - Non-payment of subsistence allowance is violative of principles of natural Justice vitiating the enquiry - Dismissal order passed by respondent No. 2 was arbitrary, biased, mala fide and contrary to principles of natural Justice - No one should be judged of his own cause - The order of dismissal is bad and illegal - The entire enquiry proceedings were contrary to standing orders and against the elementary principle that an employee should be given fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself - The action of Shri Chauhan satisfied the ingredients of malice in law - The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction can award exemplary compensation against public officers for breach of public duty
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant in 1975 in U. P. State Bridge Corporation, Lucknow. He was confirmed in 1989. He was elected as Vice-President of the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Setu Nigam Sanyukt Karamchari Sangh. Shakha. Etawah on 2. 11. 1993. He was suspended by Shri Chauhan on 11. 4. 1994 and was dismissed from service by order dated 8. 4. 1995 passed by Shri Chauhan. The petitioner was not paid any subsistence allowance from 11. 4. 1994 to 8. 4. 1995, the day he was suspended till he was dismissed. The petitioner claimed that the dismissal order passed by respondent no. 2 was arbitrary, biased, mala fide and contrary to principles of natural Justice. He also claimed that the non-payment of subsistence allowance was violative of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that he was entitled for compensation as his constitutional right was violated by Shri H. K. Chauhan intentionally, knowingly and deliberately.
Finding of the Court:
The order of dismissal is bad and illegal, as the entire enquiry proceedings were contrary to standing orders and against the elementary principle that an employee should be given fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The action of Shri Chauhan satisfied the ingredients of malice in law. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction can award exemplary compensation against public officers for breach of public duty. The dismissal order dated 8. 4. 1995 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Annexure-20 to the writ petition is quashed with all benefits of service to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith and paid his entire arrears of salary. The aforesaid direction shall be complied by the respondents within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 3.
Issues: The dismissal order passed by respondent No. 2 was arbitrary, biased, mala fide and contrary to principles of natural Justice. The non-payment of subsistence allowance was violative of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the petitioner was entitled for compensation as his constitutional right was violated by Shri H. K. Chauhan intentionally, knowingly and deliberately.
Ratio Decidendi: The action of Shri Chauhan satisfied the ingredients of malice in law. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction can award exemplary compensation against public officers for breach of public duty. The dismissal order is bad and illegal, as the entire enquiry proceedings were contrary to standing orders and against the elementary principle that an employee should be given fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Final Decision: The dismissal order dated 8. 4. 1995 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Annexure-20 to the writ petition is quashed with all benefits of service to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith and paid his entire arrears of salary. The aforesaid direction shall be complied by the respondents within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 3.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant in 1975 in U. P. State Bridge Corporation, lucknow (in brief corporation ). He was confirmed in 1989. He was elected as Vice-President of the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Setu Nigam Sanyukt Karamchari Sangh. Shakha. Etawah on 2. 11. 1993. He was posted on 28. 12. 1933 at Ahnaiya Setu Moonj Rampura, Etawah. On 7. 4. 1994 he got information that a dacity had taken place in the night of 6. 4. 1994 on the workers who were working at Kursaua Tamairi Road where construction work of Sirsa River Bridge was going on. He being Vice-President of the Union, rushed to the place of incident. After some time Deputy project Manager Shri Hemant Kumar Chauhan/respondent No. 2 (in brief Shri Chauhan) also reached there. The petitioner apprised him of the incident and requested to lodge a report with the police. But Shri Chauhan did not agree. On the contrary, he became annoyed and enquired from the petitioner as to why he had reached there. According to the petitioner, Shri Chauhan even misbehaved with the petitioner, therefore, he was compelled to write against him on 8. 4. 1984 to respondent No. 1 with copy to District Magistrate, Chief Development Officer and the Managing Director of the Corporation. The Chief Development Officer forwarded the letter of the petitioner to the Managing Director on 22. 4. 1994. On 17. 1. 1995 the General Manager wrote a letter to the petitioner to furnish evidence in support of his complaint dated 8. 4. 1994.
( 2 ) IN the meantime, the petitioner was suspended by Shri Chauhan on 11. 4. 1994. He was attached to the place of his posting. The suspension order further directed the petitioner not to enter any other place of construction in Etawah Unit. On 5. 5. 1994 Shri Chauhan framed four charges against petitioner. The first charge was that the petitioner without prior permission reached Tamairi site and instigated the workers to stop the work. The second charge was that on 7. 4. 1994 and 8. 4. 1994 the petitioner. Shri Anuj Kumar Jha electrician, Shri Khaliq Khan Khalosi and Munna Singh truck driver conspired to get the work stopped and instigated the workers who were willing to work to stop it. The third charge was that the petitioner on a private jeep went around all the places of the unit where work was going on and instigated the workers to stop the work. It was alleged that the petitioner further came to the office of the Deputy Project Manager on 11. 4. 1994 misled the workers and instigated them to stop the work. The fourth charge was that that due to instigation of petitioner the workers of the entire places came to Etawah but when they came to know that they were misled then they returned. The result was that the work in all the places on 11. 4,1994 remained closed. Even the work in the constituency of the Minister was obstructed which affected the image of the corporation and caused loss to it. In the bottom of the charge-sheet, it was mentioned that the violations of various clauses of standing orders against petitioner was proved. But the charge-sheet did not mention any material or evidence on which it was based or which was to be produced against the petitioner.
( 3 ) ON 29. 9. 1994 the petitioner received a letter from Shri Ramjee Singh. Assistant Engineer that he had been appointed enquiry officer by the Deputy Project Manager and he may appear before him on 10. 10. 1994. In compliance to this letter the petitioner appeared and his statement was recorded. He was questioned about the charges even though no charge-sheet was served on him. The petitioner wrote a letter on 19/20. 10. 1994 to the enquiry officer to supply a copy of the charge-sheet as It has not been served on him. He further requested that a copy of his statement recorded on 10. 10. 1994 and certified copy of other documents may be supplied to him. The enquiry officer supplied a copy of the charge-sheet only. No other document was supplied. Even copy of his statement was not s
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
