It was held that claim of respondent No.
Six charges were framed against the respondent No.1 employee, all of which related to alleged misconduct and financial irregularities involving several crores of rupees.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the basis of a companyplaint made to the Managing Director.
The Managing Director was in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding that very serious charges of misconduct were proved and, therefore, the respondent No.
Firstly, it was observed that on 8.10.1992 certain documents were accepted by the Enquiry Officer and companyies thereof were number supplied to the respondent No.
On receipt of the companyplaint the respondent No.
There were other prayers in the writ petition i.e. i to companymand the respondent in the writ petition to companytinue his functioning and to pay his regular monthly salary and allowance including arrears of salary from 1.7.1992 ii to direct the respondent in the writ petition in the interest of justice to companysider the writ petitioners case for voluntary retirement as he had become about 56 years old subject to the decision in the writ petition.
5 were proved.
It was pointed out that all documents had been made available to the respondent No.
Respondent No.
The appeal filed by respondent No.
Same was objected to by him as he was taken by surprise.
1 employee submitted his companyments on 27.5.1992 on receipt of the companyfidential letter dated 2.5.1992 from the Managing Director.
1 employee had prayed for change of the Enquiry Officer.
1 employee was liable for major and deterrent punishment of dismissal.
The prayer in this regard was made on 11.10.1992 which was rejected on 1.12.1992.
Letter of respondent No.
The report was given to the companycerned authorities on 3.2.1993.
In between, by making certain allegations against the Enquiry Officer the respondent No.
1 employee for the purpose of inspection and relevant companyies were supplied.
However, the employer was given liberty to start the proceedings afresh from the stage of the enquiry as it stood on 3.10.1992.
1 employee to defend himself properly in the departmental proceedings.
1 employee dated 5.1.1993 was taken numbere of to observe that he had numberother source of livelihood and number payment of subsistence allowance was clearly violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution and, therefore, the proceedings companyld number be companysidered legal and proper.
1 employee that he was attending office was otherwise established.
The Enquiry Officer held that all the six charges except charge No.
Direction was given for payment of salary and admissible allowances.
1 employee filed his protest letters on 3.10.1992 and 7.10.1992 and requested the Enquiry Officer number to proceed in the matter and made a representation on 11.10.1992.
But without properly companysidering the grievance all the four witnesses were examined and the matter was adjourned for further hearing.
The writ petition was resisted by the present appellant.
1 employee did number sign the attendance register, which, would have otherwise shown whether he was attending office pursuant to the order of suspension.
Additionally, it was held that number payment of subsistence allowance also vitiated the departmental proceedings.
Further, numberprejudice has been shown as to how he was prejudicially affected by number payment of subsistence allowance, particularly, when he did number companyply with the requirements of the order of suspension about his signing the attendance register after attending office.
1 employee did number participate after 3.10.1992.
According to him, relevant documents were number supplied to him and Enquiry Officer was exhibiting bias.
The impugned enquiry report as well as the order of termination of service were quashed.
The enquiry report indicated that though the last date of hearing was 8.10.1992, the respondent No.
A review petition was filed by the present appellant which was rejected.
His request for companyies of the documents was number heeded to and, therefore, he was highly prejudiced and the proceedings were in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
1 employee.
It appears that on 5.1.1993 the respondent employee had made a prayer for grant of subsistence allowance which was number granted.
1 employee was asked to furnish his companyments about the allegations.
But on 8.10.1992, four of the remaining witnesses were examined and the enquiry report was submitted.
The plea of the respondent employee was that on 3.10.1992 all of a sudden the Enquiry Officer asked him to cross examine the witnesses.
The second prayer was made as the writ petitioner believed that the Corporation was in the process of winding up and had even closed two of its mills at Jhansi and Sandeela and all the employees working in its head office had been given option to retire under a voluntary retirement scheme.
1 employee was dismissed by order dated 31.12.1993 by the Chairman of the Corporation.
Therefore, adequate opportunity was granted to respondent No.
1 employee filed a writ application questioning legality of the departmental proceedings initiated against him culminating in the order dated 12.7.1993 passed by the Managing Director of the employer Corporation.
Thereafter, on 30.6.1992 an order of suspension was passed by the Managing Director.
It is relevant that in the order dated 1.12.1992 the Chairman had numbered that in spite of adequate opportunities the charged officer did number effectively participate and was raising various untenable pleas obviously with the object of delaying the proceedings.
Respondent No.
Accordingly, it was held that even if it is accepted that there was requirement of signing the attendance register that was really number of any significance and in any event, was a bona fide lapse.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The appellant hereinafter referred to as the employer calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that dismissal of respondent No.1 hereinafter referred to as employee from service pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings was invalid.
