Managing Director, U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation and anr. Vs. Radhey Shyam - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- m. katju and umeshwar pandey, jj.1. this special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single judge dated 9.7.2004.2. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and find no infirmity in the same.3. the facts are set out in greet detail in the judgment of the learned single judge and hence we are not repeating the same. however, we may mention that a charge-sheet dated 21.3.1993 in respect of caste certificate was issued to the petitioner but the enquiry in this regard was subsequently dropped. thereafter a fresh charge-sheet dated 2.2.1999 was issued to the writ petitioner to which the writ petitioner did not give any reply. thereafter no enquiry was held against the writ petitioner and instead the enquiry report dated 29.7.1999 was submitted by the enquiry officer, copy of which is annexure 28 to the writ petition. a perusal of the enquiry report shows that all that is stated therein is that since several opportunities were given to the writ petitioner for replying to the charge-sheet but he did not do so, hence it would be deemed that he has accepted the charges against him. thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.8.1999 to which he gave a reply and thereafter the impugned dismissal order dated 14.2.2000 was passed. against that order the writ petition was filed in this court which has been allowed by the learned single judge.4. from the above facts it is evident that in fact no enquiry was held against the writ petitioner after giving him the charge-sheet.5. the facts of the case are covered by the decision of the supreme court in the imperial tobacco company of india ltd. v. its workmen, air 1962 sc 1348, which has been followed by a division bench of this court in subhash chandra sharma v. managing director, 1999 (4) awc 3227. the division bench of this court has held that after the charge-sheet is given the date, time and place of the enquiry should be intimated to the employee and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should be led in his presence and he should be given opportunity of cross-examination. if despite intimation the employee fails to appear in die enquiry then an experte enquiry should be held, but the employee's service cannot be terminated without holding an enquiry. it was farther held that even if the employee fails to appear in the enquiry, the enquiry officer must hold an experte enquiry in which the evidence must be led against the employee.6. in the present case, a perusal of the enquiry report (annexure 28 to the writ petition) shows that merely because the petitioner did not reply to the charge-sheet it was deemed that he accepted the charge. this is not legally correct as held in subhash chandra sharma's case (supra).7. for the reasons given above there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.