http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1576 of 2008

PETITIONER: Managing Director,U.P.Co-operative Union Ltd. & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Mohan Babu Srivastava & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/02/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & V.S.SIRPURKAR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT                    ORDER

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.1576 /2008 (@SLP(C) No.7917 /2006)

               Leave granted.                 Respondent was an employee of the appellant. He was transferred  to Pilibhit by an order dated 16.10.1998. He did not join the said transferred post. He  was placed under suspension by an order dated 16.11.1998. A departmental  proceeding was initiated against him. A large number of charges including  defalcation were framed in the departmental proceeding. Attempts after attempts  were made to serve the charge-sheet on him i.e. on 2.2.2001, 7.3.2001, 19.4.2001 and  28.8.2001. Even the contents of the said charge-sheet were published in the  newspaper. He did not file any show-cause. The inquiry officer submitted a report  thereafter. Again a second show-cause notice was issued on 18.8.2001. He even did not  reply thereto.                 Respondent, however, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad  High Court. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment holding that the  inquiry proceeding was vitiated in law as the inquiry officer did not apply his mind  -1-

on the materials produced before him directed his reinstatement without back wages.                 Mr.Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant  would submit that keeping in view the fact that the respondent had not appeared  before the inquiry officer nor filed any show-cause, the impugned judgment cannot be  sustained.                 Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondent, on the other hand would support the impugned judgment.                 The High Court, even if it was correct in its view on the merit of the  matter, in our opinion, could not have directed  reinstatement of the respondent.                 Even if decisions in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors.  Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. - (1993) 4 SCC 727 and in U.P. State Co-operative Land  Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors.-  1991 1 SCC 741 were to  be applied, the order of reinstatement could not have been passed.                               Mr. Jain, learned counsel relies on a decision of this Court in  Deputy Registrar Coop. Societies and Other Vs.Bunni Lal Chaurasia - 2005 11 SCC  570, where principles of natural justice were held to be not applicable having regard  to the fact that despite service of notice, the respondent did not appear. The said  decision is not applicable in the instant case as from a perusal of the report submitted  by the  -2-

inquiry officer it is evident that he had proceeded solely on the basis that as no reply  has been filed by the delinquent officer, the charges must be held to have been proved.         A distinction exits between a case where the delinquent officer admits his  guilt and a case where he absents himself in the proceeding. In the latter event, even if

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

he is proceeded against ex-parte evidence has to be led as the enquiry officer is  required to apply his mind on the materials brought on record.         In his report the inquiry officer has not referred to any document placed  before him. Who produced the said document is not known. How the said documents  could be used against the respondent was not deliberated upon.          In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice  would be subserved if the matter is remitted to the inquiry officer to hold a denovo  enquiry against the respondent. However, keeping in view the  conduct of the  respondent in so far as he had been avoiding the disciplinary proceeding from 1998  till date as also in view of the report,we direct that the  respondent shall  not be  entitled to any subsistence allowance for the said period.         Respondent shall report before the Managing Director of the appellant on  29.3.2008. The Disciplinary Authority  shall immediately appoint another inquiry  officer. Inquiry proceeding as against the respondent may be completed as  expeditiously as possible. -3-

               The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent and with the  aforementioned directions and observations.