Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Spinning Mills

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Spinning Mills

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Appeal No. 4640 Of 1999 | 08-05-2001

M. KATJU, J.

(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, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541 [LQ/AllHC/1999/1432] 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.

Advocate List
  • For the Appearing Parties Ajit Kumar, Manu Saxena, Mohit Kumar, P.S. Baghel, R.K. Oza, Advocates.
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. M. KATJU
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. R.B. MISRA
Eq Citations
  • (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1475
  • LQ/AllHC/2001/457
Head Note

Service Law — Termination of services — Without holding enquiry — Imposition of major punishment — Held, in cases where a major punishment proposed to be imposed, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee request, for it or not — 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 — Termination order passed without holding enquiry against the petitioner which is illegal and quashed — Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writ petition — Interference with order of termination