2002 (11) TMI 816 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the dismissal order dated 26.7.1985.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice during the enquiry process.
3. Opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses.
4. Provision of necessary documents to the petitioner.
5. Admission of guilt by the petitioner.
6. Reinstatement and back wages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the dismissal order dated 26.7.1985
The special appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.10.1999, which dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal order dated 26.7.1985. The petitioner, a cashier, was dismissed based on a charge-sheet dated 3.2.1985. The High Court scrutinized whether the dismissal was lawful and whether due process was followed.

2. Compliance with principles of natural justice during the enquiry process
The court emphasized the necessity of an oral enquiry before imposing a major punishment like dismissal. The law mandates that after a charge-sheet is issued, an oral enquiry must be conducted, and the employee must be given notice of the date, time, and place of the enquiry. The employer must lead oral and documentary evidence against the employee in the latter's presence. This principle ensures the employee knows the charges and evidence against him to properly respond.

3. Opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses
The court found that the enquiry officer called the petitioner for personal hearing without first examining the witnesses against him in his presence. The statement of Hanuman Saran, the driver, was recorded behind the petitioner's back, and the petitioner was not allowed to inspect the written report of Najib Ahmad. The petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. Provision of necessary documents to the petitioner
It was alleged and not denied that the petitioner was not supplied with the report of Najib Ahmad dated 30.1.1985. This omission further violated the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was deprived of the chance to use the report in his defense.

5. Admission of guilt by the petitioner
The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner admitted his guilt. However, the court found no evidence of such an admission. The petitioner consistently contended that the guilt lay with Najib Ahmad. The letter dated 9.2.1985 (Annexure-4) did not constitute an admission of guilt.

6. Reinstatement and back wages
The court concluded that the dismissal order dated 26.7.1985 was illegal due to the lack of a proper oral enquiry and the violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the dismissal order and the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.10.1999 were set aside. The court directed the petitioner's reinstatement with full back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement, along with interest at 10% per annum.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the dismissal order dated 26.7.1985 and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.10.1999. The court ordered the petitioner's reinstatement with full back wages and interest due to the failure to conduct a proper enquiry and the violation of natural justice principles.