Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 6 8 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Nothing 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.
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 numberlocus standi to maintain the writ petition.
The Division Bench remanded the case for a decision on merits.
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 Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Tyagi filed a suit challenging his dismissal.
It arises out of these facts N. Vajpayee, respondent herein, was employed as a Warehouseman with the Corporation and at the relevant time was posted at the Kanpur Warehouse.
He further prayed for a direction that the Corporation be restrained from recovering the sum of Rs.
The following Judgments were delivered by SARKARIA, J. Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation for short, the Corporation , has preferred this appeal by special leave against an appellate judgment, dated August 6, 1969, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad.
Hence this appeal by the Corporation.
The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, 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.
4 of 1967 to a Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed that appeal by a judgment, dated August 6, 1969.
In the companynter affidavit, the appellants stated that the respondent had also cross examined the witnesses.
87 of 1962 under Article 226 of the Constitution, 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 innocence.
274 of 1970.
It was further pleaded that the writ petition was delayed and should have been thrown out on that score, also.
549.61 from the respondent.
A preliminary inquiry was held by the Managing Director of the Corporation and charges were framed against him and served upon him on November 28, 1960, requiring him to submit his explanation and to indicate the evidence, if any.
549.61 due to the Corporation on account of certain companymodities said to have been misappropriated by the respondent on account of short realisation of storage charges by him.
He prayed for a declaration for reinstatement on the ground that the relationship was one of personal service.
There was a companyplaint of theft, misappropriation of stocks and various other irregularities against the respondent.
549.61 from him.
He further gave the names and particulars of certain other witnesses, stating that he wanted to examine them, in defence.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
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 Corporation again preferred a Special Appeal No.
Aggrieved, the respondent carried a special appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court, 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.
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.
K. Sen, E. C. Agarwala, R. Sathish and V. K. Pandita for the Respondent.
He, therefore, quashed the order of the respondents dismissal, but refused to grant an injunction restraining the appellant for realizing Rs.
The respondent then filed a Writ Petition No.
Thereafter, the respondent submitted his explanation on January 19, 1961.
It was further urged that there had also cross examined the witnesses.
N. Phadke and Naunit Lal for the appellants.
Later on, a demand was made from the respondent, requiring him to remit a sum of Rs.
