- (1.) DEPARTMENTAL proceedings were initiated against the petitioner P.C. Chaturvedi. Initially, the petitioner was suspended and, thereafter, chargesheeted. The petitioner denied the charges and, accordingly, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the six charges were proved except charge no.5. The Managing Director agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and holding that the charges were very serious passed an order of dismissal from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chairman of the Corporation. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.7631 of 1994, which was allowed by a judgment dated 10th October, 2001. The writ Court quashed the inquiry report as well as the order of dismissal and the appellate order giving liberty to the corporation to start de novo disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law or proceed with the inquiry from the stage as it was on 3rd October, 1992. The writ Court also issued a writ of mandamus directing the corporation to pay salary and other admissible allowances as prayed by the petitioner.
(2.) THE Corporation, being aggrieved, filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was admitted and the civil appeal was allowed and the judgment of the writ Court was set aside. The said decision of the Supreme Court is U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and others, 2005 8 SCC 211.
(3.) THE writ Court held that the departmental proceedings were nonest, inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer accepted certain documents on 8th October, 1992 without supplying copies to the petitioner and that his request for copies of the documents were not heeded to. The writ Court held that the petitioner was prejudiced and that the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ Court further held that non -payment of subsistence allowance also vitiated the departmental proceedings since it was in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court while setting aside the decision of the High Court held that copies of a large number of documents were supplied to the petitioner and that the High Court attached great importance to the admission of a document on 8th October, 1992. The Supreme Court held that the document that was accepted by the Inquiry Officer on 8th October, 1992 was not any document but only a list of documents/books of accounts in possession of the petitioner. The Supreme Court further held that it was not shown as to how the non -supply of the list caused any prejudice to the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that since no additional document was brought on record, the order of the High Court on this aspect was untenable. The Supreme Court further found that non -payment of subsistence allowance did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and since no such averment to this effect was made, the High Court fell in error on this aspect. The Supreme Court consequently, set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court considered the submission of the petitioner, who contended that his challenge to the dismissal was not restricted to these two points but there were other grounds of challenge. Accordingly, the Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration of other grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider the writ petition on the grounds other than the two grounds, which have been dealt with by the Supreme Court.;