U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 – regn. 85 – Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited – r.84 – Dismissal from service – Violation of principles of natural justice – Appellant was posted as the in-charge of the paddy procurement centre at U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited – He was served a charge-sheet alleging, inter alia, that as the in-charge of the centre he had purchased 1946.60 quintals of paddy from farmers for delivery to M/s Pashupati Nath for de-husking, but delivery was short by 1093.60 quintals – Departmental enquiry began – Vide supplementary charge sheet it is alleged that appellant embezzled Rs. 2,00,850 by showing purchases of 5000 sacks of de-husked paddy for storage – Charges proved – Appellant was dismissed from service and a direction to recover the amount was issued – Writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed – Appellant, inter alia, contends that not even a single witness was examined in support of the charges and no oral enquiry was held as required by the extant service rules – Correctness: Held: It is settled that unless the charged employee accepts his guilt in clear terms, an enquiry on the charges drawn against him would have to be held – In the enquiry, the employer /department would have to take steps first to lead evidence against the workmen/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross examine those witnesses – Only thereafter, the workmen /delinquent shall be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and/ or submit an explanation about the evidence led against him – Even in a case based solely on documentary evidence, unless the relied upon documents are admitted by the charged employee, a witness would have to be examined to prove those documents and when so examined, the witness would have to be tendered for cross-examination – In the instant case, the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant were denied by him – Therefore, in view of this court, the enquiry stood vitiated – Once the enquiry stood vitiated, the consequential order of punishment/recovery cannot be sustained – Impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside – The order of dismissal and consequential recovery is also set aside – Liberty granted to the Federation to hold a de novo enquiry. [Paras 17, 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.