SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 2256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR AGARWAL, IFAQAT ALI KHAN, JJ.
Rajesh Bhardwaj and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondent
Writ-A No. 54840, 54841 of 2013
Decided On : 20-11-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pushkar Mehrotra, N.K. Singh, Sameer Sharma
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Pranjal Mehrotra, Siddhartha, Yashovardhan Swarup

Headnote:

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Companies Act, 1956 – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Constitution of India – Article 12 & 226 – Petitioner assailing termination order passed by Managing Director, Central U.P. Gas Limited ("CUPGL") terminating petitioner from service giving one month salary in lieu of notice period by referring to terms of letter of appointment – Termination has been challenged on ground that no proper inquiry was conducted – Held, Relationship of employment between petitioner and CUPGL is purely and simply an ordinary contract of service which is not governed by any statute or statutory provision – In such cases, a contract of service cannot be sought to enforced by Court of law by giving relief of reinstatement or continuance in employment as this relief is barred under Act, 1963 – Petitions dismissed. (Paras, 32 & 41)

Facts of the case:

Petitioner was appointed as Manager in CUPGL initially on probation of one year he was placed under suspension – Charge-sheet also served upon him leveling three charges – Petitioner assailing termination order passed by Managing Director, Central U.P. Gas Limited ("CUPGL") terminating petitioner from service giving one month salary in lieu of notice period by referring to terms of letter of appointment – Termination has been challenged on ground that no proper inquiry was conducted.

Findings of the court:

Relationship of employment between petitioner and CUPGL is purely and simply an ordinary contract of service which is not governed by any statute or statutory provision – In such cases, a contract of service cannot be sought to enforced by Court of law by giving relief of reinstatement or continuance in employment as this relief is barred under Act, 1963.

Result: Petitions dismissed

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents in both these writ petition.

2. Both these writ petitions involve similar questions of law involving similar facts, hence have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Writ Petition No. 54840 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "First Petition") has been filed by sole petitioner, Rajesh Bhardwaj, under Article 226 of Constitution of India assailing termination order dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by Managing Director, Central U.P. Gas Limited (hereinafter referred to as "CUPGL") terminating petitioner from service giving one month salary in lieu of notice period by referring to terms of letter of appointment dated 09.04.2009.

4. The facts in brief are that CUPGL is a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956") incorporated as a joint venture of Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "GAIL") and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BPCL"). Petitioner was appointed as Manager (C&P) on 30.03.2010 in CUPGL initially on probation of one year. On 24.05.2013, he was placed under suspension. A charge-sheet dated 24.05.2013 was also served upon him leveling three charges as under:

"A. Providing forged Rail tickets and claiming travel expenses- It has come to the notice of the management that on the several occasions you have submitted forged Rail tickets for your official tours and claimed the expenses from the company. Please explain.

B. Vehicle Loan - Non Hypothecation

After taking vehicle loan from the Company, you have now refused to provide any vehicle relates documents to the Company. This in itself a very serious offence, if you adopt to such acts of indiscipline, then the office decorum and rules would be flouted at every step. After providing you adequate notice, HR stopped your salary payment for April 2013.

C. Financial irregularities attached as Annexure- A

Please note the charges on your part are quite serious and grave in nature and tantamount to serious acts of gross misconduct as follows:

* Claiming reimbursement against forged Railway tickets.

* Gross violation in adopting financial & C&P guidelines.

* Misguiding superiors on tender files.

* Authorizing payment to contractors without verification.

* Providing misleading information to management MD & DC.

* Financial irregularities

Being a Manager C&P in the Company, your aforesaid acts are of serious concern and casts a doubt to your integrity."

5. Petitioner submitted reply dated 19.06.2013 denying the charges leveled against him. Through an E-mail dated 20.06.2013 he was required to be present at Kanpur Office between 24.06.2013 to 28.06.2013. He reached office on 24.06.2013 but was not called for in discussion. On 25.06.2013 again petitioner received an E-mail requiring him to appear for discussion in Kanpur Office on 25.06.2013. On 25.06.2013 he was asked to come in Conference Room where he found that a private company namely K.P.M.G., a Chartered Accountant Firm, was appointed as Inquiry Agency and three persons were sitting in Conference Room not known to petitioner. The Representative of Inquiry Agency put certain queries to petitioner and thereafter he was asked to again appear on 28.06.2013. Petitioner appeared on 28.06.2013 but did not find any Member of Inquiry Committee and no proceedings, therefore, took place on that date. Petitioner then sent a letter dated 10.07.2013 asking respondent-2 to convey him conclusions arrived at by Inquiry Committee or by any higher Officer. Reminders were also sent on 18.07.2013 and 29.07.2013. Letter dated 29.07.2013 remained unserved with the endorsement "refused to receive". Thereafter, petitioner was served with the letter dated 01.08.2013 terminating him from services.

6. The termination has been challenged on the ground that no proper inquiry was c


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top