Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & Others vs Janki Devi

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The application, seeking condonation of the delay, is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

This appeal is preferred by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1802 of 2013 dated 18.04.2017.

The petitioner's husband was issued a charge-sheet on 18.08.2003. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was held, and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.01.2004. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-writ petition on 19.06.2004 enclosing thereto a copy of the inquiry report. In the said show-cause notice, the punishment of removal from service was proposed. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that the Disciplinary Authority had already made up its mind to terminate the services of the petitioner and, since the issue had already been prejudged mentioning that the penalty of removal was proposed to be imposed, the petitioner's reply to the notice dated 19.06.2004 was of no avail.

The learned Single Judge noted that the services of the petitioner's husband were terminated on 05.10.2004, and his appeal was dismissed on 04.01.2012 on the ground of limitation.

On the ground that the notice dated 19.06.2004 was defective, the termination order dated 05.10.2004 (erroneously recorded as 05.10.2016) was quashed and set-aside along with the appellate order dated 04.01.2012. However, liberty was reserved to the respondents-appellants to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law, from the stage of issuance of notice, after receipt of the inquiry report dated 17.01.2004.

Though this fact was stated in the writ affidavit, the learned Single Judge failed to note that the petitioner's husband had died in the year 2009. Consequently, the appellants-respondents could not have been granted liberty to proceed with the matter, since no inquiry can be held against a dead person.

Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the petitioner had submitted an appeal on 20.08.2009, and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of laches, since it had been preferred more than four years after the services of the petitioner's husband were terminated. Despite taking note of the fact that the appeal, preferred by the respondent-writ petitioner, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation, the learned Single Judge failed to examine whether or not the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the said application on the ground of limitation. The learned Single Judge has also failed to consider whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal, preferred by the respondent-writ petitioner, on the ground of limitation.

As it would be inappropriate for us to examine these contentions, for the first time in an intra-court appeal, we consider it appropriate to set-aside the order under appeal, and restore Writ Petition (S/S) No.1802 of 2013 to file.

Since the Writ Petition relates to the year 2013, and all matters prior to 2014 have been identified for expeditious disposal, we request the learned Single Judge to consider deciding the Writ Petition at the earliest.

Needless to state that the order now passed by us, shall not disentitle the petitioner from being extended all such terminal benefits which her husband was entitled to, consequent upon his termination from services.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.