- (1.) HEARD sri R. K. Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Nath singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is directed against the orders dated 5. 3. 1999 passed by the Managing Director, u. P. State Handloom Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'corporation'), respondent No. 3, dismissing the petitioner from service pursuant to a departmental enquiry, and, dated 22. 8. 1999 passed by the Chairman U. P. State Handloom Corporation rejecting his appeal.
(2.) THE facts, in brief are that U. P. State Handloom corporation is a company registered under the companies Act, 1961 wholly owned by the State of u. P. It is a instrumentality of State Government and is a "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution of india. The petitioner was appointed as Depot Manager (Grade-2) vide appointment letter dated 1. 6. 1980 issued by the respondent No. 3. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. (Officers and Staff) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 rules ). On certain allegations, he was dismissed from service without any show cause notice or enquiry vide order dated 16. 8. 1989 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 21735 of 1989, and, while the said writ petition was pending, the parties entered a settlement that the corporation would withdraw the order dated 16. 8. 1989 and would be at liberty to held an enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner in the said order dated 16. 8. 1989. However, in the meantime the petitioner shall be reinstated and would be paid the same pay which he was getting at the time of termination and shall also be allowed to continue with the benefit of seniority etc. With respect to the back wages, the petitioner shall be paid 50% of the wages, 25% shall stand waived off and 25% shall be retained by the management towards security amount of the petitioner. The management also reserved right to hold departmental enquiry which would be completed within 6 months from the date of acceptance of the settlement and in case the petitioner is found innocent, his rest of the amount of 25% wages shall be released but if the charges are proved, the said amount would be adjusted against the irregularities proved and in case the amount of recovery is found more, the balance shall be realized from the petitioner from his other dues and sources. The petitioner agreed to withdraw his writ petition and ultimately the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 15. 3. 1993. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated on 28. 4. 1993 and was directed to join in the office of Regional Marketing Manager of the Corporation at the Head Office where he joined on the same date. He was however not paid wages as per the settlement for which he made representations. In the meantime, the petitioner was also transferred and posted at Regional Office of the corporation at Bhuvneshwar in the State of Orissa vide order dated 21. 12. 1993. The petitioner challenged the order of transfer in writ petition No. 20114 of 1994, wherein no interim order was passed and ultimately as dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy on 28. 7. 1997. In the meantime, the corporation compelled the petitioner to join at the transferred place but he did not join and submitted application dated 27. 1. 1994 asking to grant leave but no order was passed by the authorities on the said application. By letter dated 19. 8. 1994 issued by the Chief Marketing Manager, the petitioner was informed that the corporation has appointed him as enquiry officer to hold disciplinary enquiry in respect to alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during his posting at Gwalior show-room of the corporation. The said letter also contained 4 charges requiring him to subt. it his reply thereto. The petitioner sent a letter dated 3. 9. 1994 stating that as per the settlement, the enquiry ought to have been concluded within six months and the said period having expired, it would not be appropriate to hold any further enquiry since it is inconsistent with the said settlement. He simultaneously sent a letter to the Chief Marketing Manager requesting him to seek instructions from respondent No. 3 in the light of the settlement dated 12. 2. 1993. No decision was taken by the respondent No. 3 and in the meantime the petitioner was required to submit his reply to the charges contained in the letter dated 22. 8. 1994 which was replied by the petitioner asking the enquiry officer not to sent any letter to the petitioner in view of the settlement dated 12. 2. 1993. The petitioner also sent a letter dated 21. 12. 1995 requesting the corporation to cancel his transfer order. The enquiry officer concluded enquiry and submitted report on 24. 1. 1996, which was communicated to the petitioner along with show cause notice dated 7. 1. 1997 requiring him to show as to why he should not be dismissed from service and atso a recovery of Rs. 1,15,290. 65- be effected from him. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 12. 2. 1997 and also sent a letter dated 4. 5. 1999 stating that the documents relied upon were not supplied to the petitioner and therefore, the entire disciplinary proceeding is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Senior Manager sent a letter dated 24. 8. 1997 stating that the petitioner was furnished with a already copy of the enquiry report yet he has tried to delay the proceeding by raising demand of various documents. However, in the interest of justice, the documents which were demanded by the petitioner, copies thereof were annexed again and he was required to submit his reply within 21 days. The petitioner thereafter complained that the documents which have been made available are the photo copies and some are neither legible nor they are duly attested true copies and he has doubt on the correctness of some of the documents, therefore, he should be supplied attested certified copies of ali the documents and also the minutes of the enquiry proceedings. The respondent No. 3, however, passed order of punishment dated 5. 3. 1997 where against the petitioner's appeal before respondent no. 3 has been rejected by order dated 24. 11. 1998. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 76889 of 1999 against the punishment order as well as appellate order dated 24. 11. 1998. This Court by order dated 25. 1. 1999 disposed of the writ petition finally setting aside the appellate order since the appeal was rejected only on the ground of limitation and directed the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order after considering his appeal on merits. Consequently, the petitioner was given notice and after hearing him, the appellant authority has rejected his appeal, vide order dated 22. 8. 1999, impunged in this writ petition, upholding the punishment order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the entire proceedings have been held ex parte and in utter violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated in law.;