Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.N.VERMA versus U.P.STATE SPINNING CO.LTD.AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.N.Verma v. U.P.State Spinning Co.Ltd.And Others - WRIT - A No. 1379 of 1993 [2006] RD-AH 12060 (24 July 2006)

 

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. 1379 of 1993

Sri P.N. Verma

Vs.

U.P. State Spinning Company Ltd., Kanpur City & Others

*********

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19th December, 1992 passed by the Managing Director of the U.P. State Spinning Company, Kanpur by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

The petitioner was working as an Assistant Mill Engineer at Akbarpur Unit of the Company when the charge sheet dated 14th November, 1991 was issued to him and he was also placed under suspension. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge sheet and after holding the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed report dated 28th October, 1992 to the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority sent the copy of the report to the petitioner by means of the communication dated 19th November, 1992 so that he could represent his case. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice after which the order dated 19th December, 1992 was passed by the Managing Director. By the said order the petitioner was dismissed from service. It is this order which has been impugned in the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents in support of the charges were not supplied to the petitioner and his representation for supply of the documents was also wrongly rejected. He further submitted that the petitioner was also denied the services of one Sri SRN Sinha, Senior Accounts Officer who was working in the Holding Company. According to him, this was in the teeth of the Clause 14(6) of the Bye-Laws of the Company. In short his submission was that the principles of natural justice have been violated in the conduct of the inquiry and, therefore, the order impugned was liable to be set-aside.

Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that all the documents relied upon by the Management in support of the charges were made available to the petitioner as he was not only allowed to inspect the documents but photocopies of all the 99 documents were also made available to him. He further submitted that the petitioner was allowed opportunity to take assistance of any of his colleagues in the Company and as Sri SRN Sinha was not an employee of the Company, it was not possible to accede to the request made by the petitioner who then was asked to take the assistance of any other employee.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not supplied to him. The petitioner himself has filed as Annexures ''1 & 2' to the writ petition, copies of the communications dated 11th December, 1991 and 19th December, 1991 sent by the Management which clearly indicate that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity to inspect the documents mentioned in the charge sheet. He was also informed that he could, after inspection, inform the Inquiry Officer of the documents he desired, so that the copies of the same could be made available to him but the petitioner failed to avail of the said opportunity as a result of which another communication dated 19th December, 1991 was sent to him wherein it was stated that instead of inspecting the documents so that the domestic inquiry could be expedited, the petitioner had indulged in making false allegations against the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was again asked to inspect the documents and submit the reply to the charge sheet. The respondents have filed Annexure ''CA-3' and ''CA-4' to the counter affidavit, the communications dated 1st June, 1992 and 26th March, 1992 which clearly show that the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were supplied to him. It also mentions that the petitioner had already inspected the same. The allegations regarding non-supply of the documents, therefore, cannot be accepted.

The next contention of the learned counsel is that the services of Sri SRN Sinha were wrongly denied to him. Clause 14(6) of the Bye-Laws provides that the charged employee may take the assistance of any of his colleagues in the Corporation but he shall not be permitted to take any assistance of a lawyer. Sri SRN Sinha was not an employee of the respondents. The request of the petitioner was, therefore, rightly rejected. Thereafter opportunity was given to the petitioner to avail of the services of any other person. The petitioner suggested the name of Sri K.C. Gupta and the Inquiry Officer also permitted the petitioner to avail the services of Sri K.C. Gupta in the inquiry proceedings, provided he gave his consent. The petitioner, however, did not file the consent. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot also be accepted.

A perusal of the charge sheet also indicates that very serious charges have been leveled against the petitioner including charges relating to fraud and dishonesty in connection with the business and property of the Company and of causing financial loss to the Company. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of committing the following misconducts :-

"1. Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company.

2. Neglect of work/negligence in the performance of duty.

3. Fraud and dishonesty in connection with the business and property of the company.

4. Commission of acts amounting to moral turpitude.

5. Commission of acts subversive of good behaviour and not becoming of the status of the post held by him.

6. Failure to perform in a proper manner the duties imposed on him which is prejudicial to the interest of the company and tends to and has led to heavy financial loss to the company."

In this view of the matter also, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 24.7.2006

GS


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.