w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


A. DAVID RAJU VERSUS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES SERVICES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, VIZIANAGARAM

    Writ Petition 3524 Of 1991
    Decided On, 29 November 1995
    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY
    For the Appearing Parties: G.Chandraiah, K.Venkateswarlu, M.Kesava Rao, Advocates.


Judgment Text
( 1 ) THE petitioner is assailing the order dated 1-8-1990 passed by the 2nd respondent.


( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Attender on 1-9-1986 and he has been working under the 1st Respondent Cooperative Society. While so, he was issued with a show cause notice on 16-2-1990 as to why his services should not be terminated for his absence from the duty. The petitioner submitted his reply on 5-3-1990. Again another show cause notice was issued on 19-3-1990 for the absence of the petitioner for which also, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 23-3-1990. For the third time the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 9-5-1990 in which five charges were framed including a charge of assault on employee. The petitioner submitted the explanation denying the charges framed against him. However, the 2nd respondent passed orders on 1-8-1990 terminating his services for the alleged misconducts enumerated in the show cause notice dated 9-5-1990. The said order of termination is assailed in this Writ Petition.


( 3 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was a chronic absentee and in spite of several warnings, he did not mend his ways and he continued to be absent. Therefore, after issuing show cause notice on 9-5-1990 and considering his explanation, his services were terminated on 1-8-1990. Hence, it is submitted by the Respondents that the order of termination is quite legal and valid.


( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice in as much as no opportunity was given to him and no enquiry was conducted with regard to the charges alleged against him vide show cause notice date 9-5-1990.


( 5 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner has denied the charges, the duty castes on the Respondent to conduct a proper enquiry and after giving reasonable opportunity, the punishment is required to be imposed. But in the instant case, no such procedure have been followed. Basing on the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 9-5-1990, the authority has taken a decision as if the charges have been proved and imposed the punishment of removal from service.


( 6 ) I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the record I find that the Respondent has not conducted any enquiry in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 9-5-1990.


( 7 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was not absent and he submitted proper explanations for the charges framed against him. In such an event, it would not be open for the Respondents to impose the punishment without affording any opportunity or conducting enquiry. Therefore, without going into the merits on the case. I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition on the ground that the order of punishment dated 1-8-1990 is not preceded by any enquiry.


( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1-8-1990 issued by the 2nd Respondent is quashed. Howev

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
er, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the petitioner shall be paid 50% of the wages from the date of termination till the date of re-instatement. This order does not preclude the authority from conducting proper enquiry in pursuance of the charges framed against the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon. No costs.
O R