AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, refusing to grant approval to the order of the
petitioner Corporation terminating the services of the second respondent.
2.The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are:
The petitioner was working as Conductor in the petitioner Corporation. While so, he absented from duty from 12.10.1995 to 6.11.1995.
Therefore charge was framed, enquiry was conducted and finding was given. Thereafter the petitioner decided to terminate the services of the
petitioner and sought for the approval of the first respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent absented from duty unauthorisedly and the petitioner conducted
enquiry and in the enquiry the charge was found proved. But the Industrial Tribunal rejected to grant the approval on the ground that the Standing
Order was violated. It is not correct to say that the Department has violated the Standing Order and therefore the order of the Industrial Tribunal is
liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that in this case the petitioner was given a charge memo and he was asked to give a
reply to the charge on the very same day; the enquiry was conducted and the finding was also given on the same day. The procedure adopted in
conducting the enquiry is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given due opportunity to defend his case and all the
enquiry procedures are contrary to the Standing Order and hence the order of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with.
Considering the facts of the case, admittedly the charge memo was given and a reply was obtained on the same day; enquiry was conducted
and the finding was also given on the very same day. The manner of conducting departmental enquiry does not appear to be in accordance with the
standing orders as well as the principles of natural justice.
The cordinal principle of audi alteram partem, that is the person must be heard before passing any adverse order, must be followed. The mere
show of giving opportunity is not sufficient. Such opportunity to be heard must be real, that is, the person must be given opportunity to defend
himself. Where a reasonable time was not given to reply to the charges, memo or explanation to the charges, the opportunity given is not real.
Therefore the procedure followed violates the principle of audi alteram partem.
When the charges were framed, the petitioner must be given reasonable opportunity to defend his case. In this case the entire enquiry
procedures were over on the very same day. Therefore the Industrial Tribunal has rightly denied the approval. There is no merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently W.M.P.22215/2000 is closed.