STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. versus P.C. CHATURVEDI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 03-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. STA TE TEXTILE CORPORATION LID. 
A 
v. 
P.C. CHA TURVEDI AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 3, 2005 
[ARIJITPASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Termination-Departmental proceedings, if vitiated for non-supply of 
documents and non-payment of subsistence allowance-Held: Employee was C 
supplied relevant documents and he did not show and establish that he was 
prejudicially affected by non-payment of subsistence allowance-More so 
request was made for payment after completion of enquiry-Also the employee 
did not sign attendance register as stipulated in the suspension order-
Hence, departmental proceedings not vitiated-Quashing of termination order D 
and direction for payment of full back salary and consequential benefits by 
High Court set aside-With regard to other reliefs sought by the employee 
matter remitted back to High Court for consideration-Uttar Pradesh State 
Textile Corporation Conduct, Control and Disciplinary Rules, 1992, Rule 41. 
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 1- E 
employee on charges of misconduct and suspension order was passed. 
Respondent No. 1 challenged the proceedings and also sought other reliefs. 
High Court held that the departmental proceedings were non est for non supply 
of the documents and non payment of subsistence allowance and set aside the 
termination order. It granted payment of full back salary with consequential 
benefits, however, it granted liberty to the employee to start proceedings afresh F 
from stage of enquiry. Appellant-Corporation then filed review petition which 
was rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The judgment of High Court quashing the termination order G 
as well as the direction for payment of full back salary and consequential 
benefits is unsustainable and therefore, set aside. 1858-D) 
Managing Director, EC/l, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and 
Ors., 11993] 4 SCC 727, relied on. 
849 
H 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
P.G.l. of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar, 
[2001) 2 SCC 54; Hindustan Motors Ltd v. Tapan Kumar Bhattachdrya, 
(2002) 6 SCC 41; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd v. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 
4 SCC 579 and MP. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.), (2003) 6 
sec 141, referred to. 
B 
2. Records reveal that copies of large number of documents were 
supplied to respondent No. 1. It is not correct to say that the relevant 
documents were not supplied. High Court had attached great importance to 
the alleged acceptance of certain documents by the Enquiry Officer on 
) 
8.10.1992 and the copies thereof were not supplied to respondent No. 1. What 
C was accepted by the Enquiry Officer on 8.10.1992 was not any document but 
list of documents/books of accounts in the possession of respondent No. 1. 
Further, it has not been shown as to how the non-supply of this list caused 
any prejudice. High Court had wrongly accepted that additional documents 
had been entertained and as such the view of High Court is untenable. 
(854-D-E-F] 
D 
3.1. ~espondent No. I-employee did not take any stand before the 
authorities during the pendency of proceedings that because of non-payment 
of subsistence allowance, he was not in a position to participate in the 
proceedings, or that any other prejudice in effectively defending the 
proceedings was caused to him. He did not plead or substantiate that the non-
E payment was either deliberate or to spite him. In fact, for the first time the 
request was made for payment of subsistence allowance after completion of 
the enquiry. It has to be specifically pleaded and established as to in what way 
the affected employee is handicapped because of non-receipt of subsistence 
allowance. It is ultimately a question of prejudice. Unless prejudice is shown 
p and established, mere non-payment of subsistence allowance cannot be held 
to be denial of opportunity and cannot ipso facto be a ground to vitiate the 
departmental proceedings in every case. [854-G-H) 
G 
H 
Indra Bhanu Gaur v. Committee, Management of M M Degree College 
and Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 281, relied on. 
3.2. Rule 41 of the Uttar Pradesh State Textile Corporation Conduct, 
Control and Disciplinary Rules, I 992 provides that subsistence allowance is 
payable only when the employee, if required, presents himself every day at 
the place of work. Obviously, for establishing that the employee had presented 
himself at the place of work, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.