R.K. Agrawal, J. - (1.) The present special appeal has been filed by U. P. Stale Spinning Company Ltd.. against the judgment and order dated 27.8.1996 passed by the learned single Judge in CM. Writ Petition No. 15027 of 1987 whereby the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition and had quashed the order of termination dated 1.12.1987 passed against the respondent-writ petitioner No. 1 and 4.1.1988 passed against the respondent-writ petitioner No. 2.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present special appeal are as follows : "The two respondents--writ petitioners while working in the U. P. State Spinning Company Ltd., Maunath Bhanjan district Azamgarh, made a claim of 15% of the basic pay as interim relief as was being paid to the officer and clerical staff of the Headquarters as there was no reason for refusing the said relief to the staff of Maunath Bhanjan Unit of the appellant Mills. They also submitted a memorandum representing the clerical staff of the Mills. It appears that respondent-writ petitioner No. 2 met the Chief Executive Officer of the Azamgarh Unit regarding the said demand, who, however, it is alleged threatened him with serious consequences including transfer, termination and other harms unless he withdrew the said demand. Being apprehensive the respondent-writ petitioners approached this Court by filing C.M. Writ Petition No. 15027 of 1987, with the following reliefs : (a) to issue a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from transferring, terminating the services of the petitioners and harassing and causing any harm to the petitioners ; (b) issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay 15% of the basic pay as interim relief and fixed D.A. of Rs. 100 to the clerical staff of the Maunath Bhanjan Unit Mills ; (c) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deern fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; and (d) to award cost of this writ petition to the petitioners against the contesting respondents. While the writ petition was pending, several applications were filed by the respondent-writ petitioners for amendment of the writ petition incorporating the various facts and reliefs. Altogether 5 applications for amendment were filed. Considering the contents of the writ petition including its prayer, the learned single Judge allowed the amendment applications which related to dismissal of the respondent-writ petitioners. The learned single Judge found that the notice to show cause was alleged to have been refused by the respondent-writ petitioner No. 1 when sent by the appellant on 21.11.1987, whereafter the same show cause notice was sent on 23.11.1987 by registered post which was received by the respondent-writ petitioner No. 1 on 26.11.1987. The respondent-writ petitioner No. 1 sent his reply to the show cause notice on 26.11.1987, i.e., immediately the next day by registered post which was received by the appellant on 2.12.1987. However, a final order was passed on 1.12.1987 dismissing the respondent-writ petitioner No. 1 from service. The learned single Judge held that sending of reply by the respondent-writ petitioner No. 1 to the appellant by registered post was not in any way irregular. In the background of threat extended by the appellant and time to time again threat of transfer, suspension and disciplinary proceedings fully justify the sending of reply by registered post. The delay in receiving of such reply was not for the fault of the respondent-writ petitioner No. 1 as admittedly he sent the reply on the very next day of receiving show cause notice. Further the delay of 5, 6 days by postal authority to reach the reply to the appellant cannot be treated as a gross delay justifying them to complete the proceedings on 1.12.1987, when the termination order was being passed and no reason or urgency have been shown in not waiting for a few days for receiving reply to the show cause notice and the whole proceedings appears to have been completed within a very short span of about 10 days. The learned single Judge held that the appellant have failed to produce any material on record to justify such a hurry and thus for no fault of the respondent-writ petitioner No. 1 and there being no delay at all on his part, his reply to the show cause notice could not even be considered by the appellant. In the circumstances the order of termination was quashed. So far as the respondent-writ petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the learned single Judge, however, has held that his services were terminated vide order dated 4.1.1988 for the sole reason that he did not join the transferred place at Akbarpur. The order of termination was published in the news paper dated 4.1.1988. The learned single Judge held that the appellants have not disclosed any material showing that any show cause notice in respect of the allegations of not joining the transferred post was ever served upon the respondent-writ petitioner No. 2. In these circumstances, the order of termination dated 4.1.1988 was also quashed."
(3.) We have heard Sri V. B. Singh learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vtjay Sinha, advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shrt R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri G.K. Singh on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners.;