Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABU LAL versus VICE CHANCELLOR AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Babu Lal v. Vice Chancellor Agra Development Authority And Others - WRIT - A No. 8278 of 1993 [2007] RD-AH 8119 (1 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8278 of 1993

     Babu Lal                        versus      Vice Chairman, Agra Development

                                                            Authority, Agra and another.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

           The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the Agra Development Authority, Agra vide order dated 16.7.1971 by the Nagar   Adhikari, Agra. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 14.12.92 passed by the Vice Chairman, Agra Development Authority, Agra.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition for the relief of quashing the order of termination dated 14.12.1992 passed by respondent no.1 and for issuance of an order, direction or writ in the circumstances which this Court may deems fit and proper.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Vice Chairman, Agra Development Authority, Agra had no jurisdiction to pass the order of termination as under the bye-laws of the Agra Development Authority, only the Secretary has been empowered to exercise this power; that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned termination order; and that the petitioner has not been given   copy of the enquiry report to enable him to challenge the same before the appropriate Court.

In reply to paragraph 13 of the writ petition wherein the jurisdiction of the Vice Chairman has been challenged regarding termination of the services of the petitioner it has been stated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit that the Vice Chairman had been conferred power regarding termination of services of a class IV employee before 9.1.84 and thereafter the power has been conferred upon the Secretary of the Agra Development Authority, Agra.

In so far as question of affording not an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner is concerned, it has been stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that since no opportunity of hearing was asked for he has not been given an opportunity of hearing.

As regards the third submission that the petitioner has not been supplied the copy of the enquiry report by the Vice Chairman, Agra Development Authority, Agra to enable him to challenge the same before the appropriate Court, it has been stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that since the petitioner never demanded copy of enquiry report, hence it was not given to him.

Admittedly the Vice Chairman had no power to pass the order of termination after 9.1.84, hence the impugned termination order dated 14.12.1992 is without jurisdiction. Admittedly also, no opportunity of hearing has been granted by the authority to the petitioner before terminating his services.  This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions on the question of principles of natural justice have held that before terminating the services of a permanent employee he should be given an opportunity of hearing and also be given copy of the enquiry report etc. if any domestic enquiry has been held against him. It has also been held that the principles of natural justice are embedded in every action and are to be observed even if not specifically provided for.  Reference in this regard may be made to D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. 1993(3) SCC-259. The orders are not only reasonable but are also transparent. The case of the petitioner has certainly in my opinion been prejudiced, as no copy of the enquiry report has been given to him, which has deprived him of the opportunity to challenge under the departmental rules or before the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be.

For the reasons stated above I find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by the respondents is without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The writ petition is therefore, allowed and the impugned order is quashed.  

In so for as the payment of salary of the petitioner is concerned, he shall make a afresh comprehensive representation before the authority concerned within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order who shall decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the representation he may approach the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

No order as to costs.

Dated 1.5.2007

CPP/-

     

       

         


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.