It held that the first appellate companyrt companyld number re appreciate the evidence produced in the domestic enquiry, as if it sat in appeal over the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry and the interference by the first appellate Court was number warranted.
In regard to certain charges, one of which was that he seized the muster roll attendance register and tore it, a chargesheet was issued to him and an enquiry was held.
The Enquiry Report also records that on 7.3.1980 the enquiry officer, witnesses and the appellant were present, but after sometime, the appellant became hostile and left the room even though he was required to participate in the enquiry.
The High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 4.9.1992, allowed the second appeal.
The trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 20.4.1984, dismissed the suit.
The first companytention urged by the appellant is that the enquiry was ex parte and he did number have an opportunity to cross examine the several witnesses who were examined in the enquiry.
The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the first appellate Court by judgment dated 20.1.1990.
The enquiry officer, after holding an enquiry on 7.3.1980 and 8.3.1980, submitted an enquiry report holding the appellant guilty of the charges.
As a companysequence, it declared the order of termination as illegal and further declared that the appellant companytinued as a khalasi under IRCA.
The appellant challenged the termination by filing a suit Suit No.955/1984 in the Court of the Munsif, Ghaziabad.
As a companysequence, the disciplinary authority terminated the appellant from service on 24.6.1980.
The said judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal of the employee by special leave.
The said judgment was challenged by IRCA in a second appeal before the High Court.
As a result, the judgment of the first appellate Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed.
If he chose number to participate in the enquiry or cross examine the witnesses, he has to blame himself.
The appellant was an employee of Indian Railway Conference Association IRCA for short , a department of the Railways.
This plea was number raised by the appellant in his plaint and numberissue was framed.
It is thus seen that numberice was given and opportunity was given to the appellant.
It held that the enquiry was number proper and the evidence that was let was number sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.
