STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
A
v
T.P. LAL SRIVASTAVA
SEPTEMBER 20, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND.G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
SeTVice Law :
Dismissal from service on charges of Misappropriati01t-Charge-sheet
for committing gross i"egularities--Employee not submitting his reply despite C
several letters-Employer holding the employee guilty of misappropriation and
dismissing him from seTVice-Employee challenging it and the High Coult
holding that documents not supplied to the employee and the action vitiated
by e"or of law-On appeal held, Employer not conducted enquiry though the
employee. avoided giving reply-Employee had foregone his right to submit his
reply-However employer not absolved of the duty to hold an ex-parte en- D
quiry-Disciplinary authority to communicate copy of enquiry report and seek
an explanation from the employee-Appropriate orders. to be passed thereafter
in accordance with law-Till then the. employee deemed to be under suspen-·
sion.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12885 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.93 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 12480of1987.
Irshad Ahmad for A.K. Srivastava for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
Though notice was sent to the respondent on January 25, 199.), till
date neither acknowledgment nor unserved cover has been received back. G
Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served
on the respondent. He is set ex-pane.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the apj>ellant.
623
H
B
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Al-
lahabad High Court made on March 15, 1993 in Writ Petition No. 12480/87.
The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as a Senior
Marketing Inspector, a charge-sheet was served on him on November 23,
1984 calling upon him to explain the charges for committing gross ir-
regularities in the movement of wheat outside the State of U.P. Instead of
submitting reply to the charge-sheet, he,; went on dilly-dallying in submitting
the reply. Several letters addressed to the respondent proved ineffective.
Resultantly, the appellants took a decision on June 26, 1987 holding that
the respondent was found guilty of misappropriation. Consequently, he
came to be dismissed from service. The respondent challenged the same
C in the writ petition. The High Court has set aside the order in the impugned
order holding that the documents have not been supplied to the respondent
and, therefore, the action was vitiated by error of law. We do not find any
justification in the view taken by the High Court; the substratum of the
result is that the appellants have not conducted any enquiry though the
D respondent had been avoiding to give the reply. Since the respondent had
avoided to submit the reply, he has forgone his right to submit his reply.
Nonetheless, the appellants are not absolved of the duty to hold an ex-parte
enquiry to find out whether or not the charge has been proved. In the event
of the Enquiry Officer find that the charge is proved, he would submit that
report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority should com-
E municate the copy of the enquiry report to the respondent and seek an
explanation for the proposed action thereon. If the respondent submits any
explanation, the same may be taken into consideration and appropriate
order may be passed according to law. Until then, the respondent must be
deemed to be under suspension.
·
F
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without
costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex