numberhing happened thereafter till april 18 1961 on which date the managing director passed an order dismissing the respondent from service with effect from the date of his suspension.
it was further pleaded that the writ petition was delayed and should have been thrown out on that score also.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 6 8 1969 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number 4/67.
it arises out of these facts n. vajpayee respondent herein was employed as a warehouseman with the companyporation and at the relevant time was posted at the kanpur warehouse.
the division bench remanded the case for a decision on merits.
he prayed for a declaration for reinstatement on the ground that the relationship was one of personal service.
549.61 from him.
aggrieved the respondent carried a special appeal to a division bench of the high companyrt which has reversed the judgment of the learned single judge and has held that the corporation was required to act in a quasi judicial manner and therefore the writ petition was maintainable.
he further prayed for a direction that the companyporation be restrained from recovering the sum of rs.
on receiving the charge sheet the respondent addressed a companymunication requesting the managing director to furnish him with certain papers which were accordingly furnished.
the following judgments were delivered by sarkaria j. uttar pradesh state warehousing corporation for short the companyporation has preferred this appeal by special leave against an appellate judgment dated august 6 1969 of a division bench of the high companyrt of allahabad.
the main companytention of the learned companynsel for the appellants is that at the relevant time regulation 16 providing for an enquiry and giving an opportunity to the employee had number companye into force companysequently the respondent had numberstatutory status and had therefore no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
in the companynter affidavit the appellants stated that the respondent had also cross examined the witnesses.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 274 of 1970.
549.61 due to the companyporation on account of certain companymodities said to have been misappropriated by the respondent on account of short realisation of storage charges by him.
it was further urged that there had also cross examined the witnesses.
a preliminary inquiry was held by the managing director of the companyporation and charges were framed against him and served upon him on numberember 28 1960 requiring him to submit his explanation and to indicate the evidence if any.
he therefore quashed the order of the respondents dismissal but refused to grant an injunction restraining the appellant for realizing rs.
549.61 from the respondent.
k. sen e. c. agarwala r. sathish and v. k. pandita for the respondent.
after the remand the learned single judge by his judgment dated december 7 1966 allowed the writ petition holding that the principles of natural justice had been violated.
in this explanation he specifically demanded that he wanted to cross examine certain witnesses the particulars of which were mentioned by him.
hence this appeal by the companyporation.
the writ petition was heard by a learned single judge of the high companyrt who dismissed it holding that the corporation was number required to act in a quasi judicial manner and that the provisions of article 311 of the constitution were number applicable to the facts of the case.
the companyporation again preferred a special appeal number 4 of 1967 to a division bench of the high companyrt which dismissed that appeal by a judgment dated august 6 1969.
n. phadke and naunit lal for the appellants.
the respondent then filed a writ petition number 87 of 1962 under article 226 of the companystitution in the high court praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of his dismissal on the ground that it was violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he had number been given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and to establish his innumberence.
it was further urged that there was numberregulation provided for companyducting an inquiry in a particular manner and therefor the remedy of the respondent was by way of a suit and he had numberlocus standi to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the companyrt under article 226 of the companystitution.
thereafter the respondent submitted his explanation on january 19 1961.
he further gave the names and particulars of certain other witnesses stating that he wanted to examine them in defence.
later on a demand was made from the respondent requiring him to remit a sum of rs.
there was a companyplaint of theft misappropriation of stocks and various other irregularities against the respondent.
