- (1.) Heard Sri S.M. Misra counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.N. Tiwari counsel for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the impugned order dated March 18, 1997 Annexure-8 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of both the parties are that U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. Kanpur is an apex society as defined in U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The petitioner states that the Federation is the recruiting body and the appointing authority of the petitioner. Petitioner has stated that he was posted in different Katai Mills and ultimately he was transferred and posted at Mau Alma Sahkari Katai Mills Ltd., in the year 1992. Petitioner was suspended by letter dated July 8, 1996 and was served with a charge sheet dated September 16, 1996. On October 15, 1996 petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet. Petitioners case is that after submission of reply by him no enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer without holding an enquiry submitted enquiry report on November 4, 1996. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice, after submission of the enquiry report which was replied by the petitioner on November 19, 1996, by an order dated March 18, 1997 petitioner was dismissed from service. The respondents in the counter-affidavit have stated that the Federation has adopted U.P. State Textiles Corporation (Disciplinary) Bye-Laws, 1978 vide resolution dated March 4, 1992 and the said Bye laws are applicable for the disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Katai Mills. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that there were charges against the petitioner on which enquiry was held and enquiry report reveals serious irregularities on the part of the petitioner. The order of dismissal was justified. It has been further stated that the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975 are not applicable. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dismissal order is vitiated due to non-holding of any enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. Counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph 17(d) of the writ petition and paragraph 5 of the Supplementary affidavit dated December 10, 2000 in which it was stated that no information or notice regarding date of any enquiry was given and the dismissal order had been passed on the basis of ex parte enquiry report dated November 4, 1996. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since petitioner has denied the charges in reply to the charge sheet it was incumbent upon the respondents to have held the enquiry.
(3.) Sri J.N. Tiwari senior advocate appearing for the respondents refuting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner has stated: (i) In the facts of the present case and looking to the nature of charges there was no necessity to hold any enquiry. Reliance has been placed on Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ananda Chandra Prusty, AIR 1997 SC 2274 : 1996 (11) SCC 600. (ii) No prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner by not holding the enquiry. It has been submitted that even if there is violation of principle of natural justice but unless a prejudice is proved by an employee the dismissal order is not liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed on Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor AH Khan, 2000 (7) SCC 529. (iii) It has been further submitted that even if any defect is found in the enquiry respondents be permitted to complete the enquiry from that stage. ;