Allowed

Shahbuddinparchi Vitrak v. Sh.Keshorai Patan Sh.Sugar Mill and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2019CW/2458/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition challenging a dismissal order due to an enquiry conducted without recording any evidence against the petitioner in violation of natural justice, quashing the punishment and ordering reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Punishment order dated 1.2.1993 quashed; petitioner entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits from Official Liquidator.

Shahbuddinparchi Vitrak Vs Sh.Keshorai Patan… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 2458/1993

¶3

Shahbuddinparchi Vitrak

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sh.keshorai Patan Sh.sugar Mill And Anr.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : None

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

12/02/2019

¶12

This writ petition is being heard after having been remanded back from the Division Bench.

¶13

Earlier, this court had taken a view that the petitioner must avail alternate remedy under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However taking into consideration that the writ petition is pending since 1993 and at that time the petitioner could not avail the remedy as the respondents was declared as relief undertaking, the Division Bench has restored the writ petition with direction to expedite hearing. The petitioner is not present today nor his counsel is present on account of lawyers abstaining from work. 3. Taking into consideration that the writ petition is pending since 1993 and in view of the observation made by the Division Bench for expeditious disposal, I have perused the petition under the reply thereto.

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CW-2458/1993]

¶16

The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the order whereby the petitioner has been held guilty of having wrongfully mark his attendance by brow beating the concerned Incharge.

¶17

Vide order dated 20.6.1991 the petitioner was served with the charge sheet wherein allegations levelled were of having got attendance marked in the year 1988-1989 and 1989-1990. The second charge was that he had also coaxed other employees for receiving salary without working and having violated the order passed from time to time by the Company. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter enquiry was conducted. Before the enquiry officer, statement of the petitioner was recorded and enquiry officer has submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of charges. Copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner and vide order dated 1.2.1993 he was held guilty of all the charges and was dismissed from service. The petitioner has challenged the entire enquiry proceedings and submits that the enquiry was conducted contrary to the principle of natural justice and there is no evidence whatsoever to hold the petitioner guilty of charges. The Enquiry Officer who was appointed was not an employee of the mill and was subordinate officer of the Cooperative Department and the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies had no power to appoint the enquiry officer to hold enquiry against the petitioner. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent and they have supported the order passed and submitted that Joint -Registrar, Co-operative Societies was also the Management Director and was thus empowered to initiate enquiry against the petitioner.

¶18

(3 of 4)

¶19

[CW-2458/1993]

¶20

I have gone through the record and find that the petitioner had been suspended before enquiry was conducted.

¶21

From the perusal of the enquiry report it is apparent that no evidence of the management was recorded and only explanation of the petitioner has been recorded. There is no document on which enquiry officer has relied upon. On one hand he has given finding contrary to hold that the petitioner was working and his attendance was marked at another place and on the other hand enquiry report says that petitioner has not performed the duty. On the basis of said contradictory enquiry report wherein no evidence has been recorded either documentary or ocular, the order of dismissal passed by the respondents cannot be allowed to sustain as the same would be against the principle of natural justice. Onus of disapproving the charges cannot be put on the delinquent. Moreover the statement of the petitioner does not anywhere indict himself that is to say that he has not admitted the charges. So far as charge no.2 & 3 are concerned, they relate to pressuring other officials and on the basis thereof order of dismissal could not have been passed. The punishment order therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The punishment order dated 1.2.1993 is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. The petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. Since the respondent company has gone into liquidation, the petitioner would be entitled to claim his consequential benefits from the Official Liquidator who is also party to the writ petition.

¶23

(4 of 4)

¶24

[CW-2458/1993]

¶25

Compliance of the order shall be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

¶26

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶27

Anu/3

Shahbuddinparchi Vitrak v. Sh.Keshorai Patan Sh.Sugar Mill and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahbuddinparchi Vitrak v. Sh.Keshorai Patan Sh.Sugar Mill and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Sharma and Anr. Vs State Medical and Health Ors.

Sukhram Poswaal Vs R C S a T and Ors.

Harvir Singh Vs Union of India New Delhi and Ors.

Jogendra Vs Managing Director and Ors.

Dr Rajendra Prasad Sepat and or Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Paramtap Avasthi S/O. Shri Hari Charan Avasthi Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary