AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mukul Mudgal J.
In this case, rule has already been issued on 27th November, 1991.
With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.
This writ petition challenges the order dated 5th September 1990 passed by CGIT by which it was held that the burden of proof of proving the legality of the inquiry lay on the petitioner/management.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that he be permitted to amend the pleadings so as to take the plea that in case the inquiry is found vitiated he will lead evidence to support the findings in the inquiry before the CGIT.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this amendment may be allowed subject to the payment of costs.
6.The Order of 5th September, 1990 putting the burden of proof on the petitioner management is not in accordance with the law laid down in UCO Bank''s case (supra) and is accordingly set aside. Accordingly the plea of amendment of pleadings is allowed.
Amended petition be filed with advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 before the next date of hearing before the CGIT which is stated to be fixed on 15th December 2003. Both the parties are directed to appear before the CGIT on the Date fixed. Considering the fact that the matter has been pending in this Court for more than a decade, the CGIT shall dispose of the reference not later than 31st August 2004.
Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of and the parties are directed to appear before the CGIT on 15th December 2003. This order is subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- to be paid to respondent No.2 on or before the next date of hearing as the delay and extra hearings were caused due to the petitioner''s conduct in obtaining 4 dates for producing a witness and then raising the plea about the burden of proof.