9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Employment termination, violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, subsistence allowance payment.
Summary: The petitioner, initially appointed as a Project Manager in a society controlled by the State of Karnataka, faced disciplinary proceedings leading to his termination. The main contention was that the termination occurred without considering the reply to the second show cause notice, violating Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The respondent argued that the reply was received but should have been forwarded to the first respondent, not the Deputy Commissioner. The Court observed that the reply was addressed to the appropriate authority and received in time, thus the termination without considering the reply was in violation of Article 311. The Court quashed the termination order, remitted the matter for fresh disposal, and directed the payment of 50% of the subsistence allowance deposited in the Court to the petitioner, subject to final accounting. The Court found that the termination order was passed without considering the reply to the second show cause notice, violating Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The reply was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, who was also the Chairman of the first respondent, and was received in time. The Court held that the termination was unjust and ordered the matter to be reconsidered from the stage of the reply to the show cause notice. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the termination order, and remitted the matter to the enquiring authority for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. It was emphasized that the enquiring authority must issue a notice to the petitioner before proceeding with the enquiry. The petitioner was granted 50% of the subsistence allowance deposited in the Court, with permission to withdraw it subject to final accounting. The rule was made absolute, and the respondent was given time to file a memo of appearance.
|
