Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P.CO-OP.SPG.MILS FEDERATION LTD., KANPUR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 33291 Of 1996
Decided On : 09/07/1999
NATURAL JUSTICE - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - U. P. COOPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS FEDERATION LTD. ACT, 1961 - S. 12 - Dismissal from service without holding an enquiry and providing an opportunity to the employee to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence violates the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the U. P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., was dismissed from service without holding an enquiry or providing an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dismissal order was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice as no enquiry was held, no evidence was led in the presence of the petitioner, and he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or lead his own evidence.
Issues: Whether the dismissal order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several precedents to establish that an employee is entitled to a fair hearing, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence in their defense. The court held that the employer cannot straightaway dismiss an employee who refuses to participate in an enquiry but must hold an ex parte enquiry where evidence must be led.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned dismissal order, and directed the respondents to hold an enquiry and pass a fresh order.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22/ 23. 8. 96 (Annexure-1 to the petition) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service of the respondents. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was an employee of the U. P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. which is a Government Company. The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 8/10. 5. 96 and supplementary charge-sheet dated 20. 5. 96 (Annexures-3 and 4 to the petition ). The petitioner denied the charges and sent a reply dated 1. 8. 96. Thereafter, it is alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition that without fixing any date (or the enquiry and for leading evidence, respondent No. 2. who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, sent an enquiry report dated 12. 8,96 holding that charges 1 to 4 against the petitioner are proved. Copy of the letter dated 12. 8. 96 is Annexure-6 to the petition. Copy of enquiry report of the same date is Annexure-7 to the petition,
( 3 ) IN paragraph 6 of the petition, it is alleged that against the show cause notice dated 19. 8. 96. the petitioner sent a reply vide. Annexure-8 to the petition. Thereafter the impugned order dated 22/23. 8. 96 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service. It is alleged in paragraph 12 of the petition that the respondent Federation is an instrumentality of State within the meaning of article 12 of the Consititution of India.
( 4 ) SEVERAL points have been raised in the petition but this petition deserves to be allowed on one ground alone, and it is not necessary to go into the other grounds. In paragraph 5 of the petition it has been stated that no enquiry was held nor any date for holding the enquiry was intimated to the petitioner nor was any evidence led in the said enquiry. The reply to paragraph 5 of the petition is contained in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit. There is no denial in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit to the allegation in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that no date for enquiry was fixed nor any evidence led in the said enquiry. All that has been said in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit ts that in the charge-sheet fifteen days time was given to the petitioner to submit his reply, and thus the date in the enquiry was fixed. In our opinion, this does not mean that the date for the enquiry was fixed. The charge-sheet is Annexure-3 to the writ petition and a perusal of the same shows that no date was fixed for the enquiry in the same nor was any date fixed in the supplementary charge-sheet. Thus, the allegation in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that neither the date for the enquiry was fixed nor evidence led in the same stands unrebutted. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, it has been alleged that petitioner had asked for some documents but he was only allowed to see the documents. We are of the opinion this again does not mean that any date for the enquiry was fixed nor was any oral evidence led in the enquiry. In fact it has been admitted in paragraph 5 of the petition that no oral evidence was produced by the management.
( 5 ) IN our opinion, after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry, then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioners service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case, it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioners
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
