- (1.) The Appellant, an employee of the U.P. State Handloom Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry. The Managing Director of the Corporation passed an order on 7th June, 2006 whereby he disagreed with the Enquiry Officer's report dated 20th December, 2005 and ordered the enquiry to be conducted de novo as in his opinion there were discrepancies in the enquiry report. Assailing the aforesaid order the Appellant filed the writ petition, which has given rise to the present appeal.
(2.) The learned Single Judge after noting the arguments, rejected the writ petition holding that upon an examination of the records, the disciplinary authority found that no oral enquiry had been held and, therefore, the reasons given for ordering a fresh enquiry is justified. The learned single Judge further held that in any event, the Petitioner does not suffer in any manner as the order does not visit him with any penal consequences.
(3.) Sri Avanish Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the services of the Appellant are governed by the U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited (Officers & Staff) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1981 Rules') and according to the said Rules if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry report, he has to record reasons and also record his findings on each individual charges before ordering a fresh enquiry. Sri Mishra further contends that no opportunity was given to the Appellant at the stage of ordering a fresh enquiry, while disagreeing with the enquiry report which had already been submitted in favour of the Appellant and, therefore, the order is vitiated. He submits that Rule 15 of the 1981 Rules has been violated and, therefore, the learned Single Judge committed an error by upholding the impugned order dated 7th June, 2006.;