Procedural infirmities in employment dismissal require adherence to proper statutory processes and opportunities for employee representation.

1 This appeal is preferred by National Textile Corporation (WBAB & O) Ltd. under whose employment the respondent was working on the post of Manager of one of their showrooms.

2 The respondent was charge sheeted for shortage in stores and manipulation of accounts thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation. After departmental enquiry held by the employer, he was dismissed from service on 22.7.1993. Without resorting to the remedy in industrial law, the respondent filed a writ petition against his dismissal in the High Court of Calcutta. The learned single Judge set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 29.4.1999 and directed his reinstatement with all monetary dues for the period intervening the date of his removal and the date of reinstatement.

3 The writ appeal preferred by the employer to the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has been dismissed and the order of learned single Judge has been maintained.

4 Both learned single Judge and the Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of dismissal of the respondent on the ground that there were two serious procedural infirmities in the departmental enquiry. Firstly, after conclusion of the enquiry, the report of the Enquiry Officer was not supplied to the respondent before passing order of dismissal. The second ground to quash the enquiry and the dismissal order is that in accordance with the provision in Clause.14 (4)(c) of Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Central Rule, 1946, no opportunity of hearing against the proposed penalty was granted to the respondent.

5 The High Court came to the conclusion that as in the departmental enquiry, there is not only lapse of non supply of enquiry report to the employee but there is also denial of opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty, the procedure indicated by this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others v. B. Karunakar and Others [ 1993 (4) SCC 727 ], cannot be directed to be adopted for holding a fresh enquiry. In case of B. Karunakar and Others (Supra), this Court held that in case where enquiry report was not supplied and a prejudice is shown to have been caused to the delinquent thereby, directions can be issued for fresh enquiry from the stage of supply of enquiry report and the dismissed employee is liable to be reinstated for the limited purpose of completing the enquiry. It is only after the result of the enquiry that he may claim reinstatement if he is exonerated of the charge or some punishment other than dismissal is imposed on him. The relevant directions made by this Court in case of B. Karunakar and Others (Supra) laying down the above legal position and the procedure to be adopted in case of non supply of enquiry report read as under:
"31. Hence, in all cases where the enquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court/Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. I