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 MANU/UP/0757/1999 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4640 of 1999
Decided On: 08.05.2001
Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Markandey Katju and R.B. Mishra, JJ.
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 MANU/UP/0757/1999 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment