9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to him. He sent a reply dated 14.5.1985 and thereafter the impugned dismissal order dated 26.7.1985, Annexure-1 to the petition was passed. 5. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and hence, this special appeal. 6. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it would be useful to refer to the law as how an enquiry should be held before a major punishment like dismissal is imposed. 7. In a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills. in which one of us (Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) was a member, this law has been laid down. The law is as follows : After a charge-sheet is given to the employee, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence, a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence vide, A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) U LLJ 396 (SC). Ordinarily, if the employee is examined first, it is illegal vide Anand Joshi v. M.S.F.C., 1991 LIC 1666 (Bom) ; S. D. Sharma v. Trade Fair Authority of India and Central Railway v. Raghubir Saran. No d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry, the witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine those witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. In Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation (vide paragraph 66), the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given opportunity to rebut such evidence. 8. In Subhash Chandra Sharma's case (supra), it was held that a dismissal order has serious consequence and should be passed only after complying with the rules of the natural justice as mentioned above. Against that decision, an S.L.P. was filed which was dismissed. 9. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma's case (supra), was followed by a learned single Judge in Om Pal Singh v. District Development Officer. 10. In Sahngoo Ram Arya v. Chief Secretary, a Division Bench, in which also one of us (Hon'ble M. Katju. J.) was a member, took the same view relying on another Division Bench decision in Radhey Shyam Pandey v. Chief Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He served a charge-sheet dated 3.2.1985 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition, to which the petitioner sent a reply dated 19.2.1985 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 15. The events thereafter have to be carefully examined for the purpose of determining whether there was a proper enquiry and whether the dismissal order was valid. 16. It is alleged in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that on 12.6.1985, the enquiry officer called the petitioner for personal hearing without examining the administrative officer who had lodged the F.I.R. and other witnesses. It appears that the statement of Hanuman Saran, driver was recorded behind the back of the petitioner and this statement was not shown to the petitioner and the petitioner was not allowed to inspect the written report dated 30.1.1985 of Sri Najib Ahmad. 17. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice in which he specifically contended that no enquiry was held to establish the charges by examining the witnesses and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to cross examine and the petitioner was not allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no witness against the petitioner was examined in his presence nor was he given opportunity of cross-examining them. All that was done was that the petitioner was called on 12.10.1985 to give his statement. It is also evident that the report of Najib Ahmad dated 30.1.1985 was not supplied to the petitioner, which also violates the principles of natural justice. 20. In our opinion, there was total violation of the principles of natural justice in the alleged enquiry held on 12.6.1985 and hence it was not a valid enquiry at all in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court referred to above. Since a major punishment was being imposed on the petitioner, there should have been a proper oral enquiry before taking the action against the petitioner, but this was evidently not done. 21. The learned single Judge whose judgment is under challenge before us has, in our opinion, wrongly observed that the enquiry officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to adduce evidence. With great respect to the learned single Judge, he has not noticed the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court referred to above. In fact the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
