AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vineet Saran, J.—Heard Sri S.N. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.K. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.
The petitioner was Class a IV employee of the respondent-Bank. The admitted facts are that after holding a preliminary enquiry, on certain charges the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 21.3.1995. Thereafter he was served with a chargesheet on 13.5.1996. The petitioner thereafter applied for supply of certain documents for giving reply to the charge sheet and, as stated by the petitioner, he even deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 51/- but he was never supplied such documents. The petitioner, thus, did not submit his reply to the charge sheet. The respondent-Bank thereafter passed a resolution on 11.2.1998 for terminating the services of the petitioner and sent the same for approval. Thereafter by order dated 27.5.1998 passed, by the Secretary/General Manager, Zila Sahkari Bank, Kanpur, respondent No. 1, the petitioner was terminated from services Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this writ petition has been filed.
The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that termination order has been passed without holding any. enquiry which is contrary to the provisions of Regulation 84 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975.
The submission of Sri S.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents, is that the charges against the petitioner were very serious and since he did not reply to the charge sheet which was served upon him, hence the passing of the impugned order of termination is fully justified.
Regulation 84 specifically provides that before imposing any major penalty or removal from service recourse to disciplinary proceedings shall be taken. Regulation 85 provides for disciplinary proceedings which is to be conducted by the Inquiring Officer, Such an order of termination of service could have been passed only after, holding an enquiry. In the present case, admittedly no inquiry has been conducted. It is well settled law that even if an employee fails to give reply to the charge sheet, the enquiry must been conducted as it cannot of deemed that in the absence of reply of the charge sheet, the employee had accepted the charges. The service of an employee can be terminated only after holding an enquiry and 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 (as per Managing Director, U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation and Another Vs. Radhey Shyam, and R.K. Mehrotra Vs. U.P. Sahkari Sansthagat Sewa Mandal,
In such view of the matter, the impugned order of termination passed by the respondent-Bank without holding any enquiry is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 27.5.1998 passed by the Secretary/Generally Managing Zila Sahkari Bank, Kanpur, respondent No. 1 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The respondent-Bank shall, however, have liberty to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after holding a proper enquiry.
No order as to cost.