Supreme Court of India

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusT.P. LAL SRIVASTAVA

Citation: 1996 INSC 1090
Decided: 20 September 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The employer must hold an ex‑parte enquiry before dismissing an employee, even if the employee has not submitted a reply; until such enquiry the employee is deemed under suspension.

Summary

The respondent, a Senior Marketing Inspector, was served a charge‑sheet on 23 November 1984 alleging gross irregularities in the movement of wheat. He failed to submit a reply despite several letters, and the employer dismissed him on 26 June 1987. The High Court set aside the dismissal, holding that the employee had not been supplied with the documents and that the dismissal was vitiated by error of law. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the employee’s failure to file a reply forfeited his right to do so, but the employer was still obligated to conduct an ex‑parte enquiry before imposing dismissal. Until such an enquiry is held, the employee must be deemed to be under suspension. The Court allowed the appeal, restoring the dismissal subject to the requirement of an ex‑parte enquiry, and awarded no costs.

Issues considered

Whether dismissal without conducting an enquiry is valid when the employee fails to submit a reply to a charge‑sheet.
Whether the employee’s failure to reply forfeits the employer’s duty to hold an enquiry.
Whether an ex‑parte enquiry is required under service law before dismissal.
Whether the employee is deemed under suspension pending the enquiry.

Subjects

dismissalservice lawex‑parte enquirymisappropriationsuspensioncharge‑sheetemployee rights

Judgment

                         STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.                             A
                                     v
                          T.P. LAL SRIVASTAVA

                           SEPTEMBER 20, 1996

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND.G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                         B

        SeTVice Law :

      Dismissal from service on charges of Misappropriati01t-Charge-sheet
for committing gross i"egularities--Employee not submitting his reply despite C
several letters-Employer holding the employee guilty of misappropriation and
dismissing him from seTVice-Employee challenging it and the High Coult
holding that documents not supplied to the employee and the action vitiated
by e"or of law-On appeal held, Employer not conducted enquiry though the
employee. avoided giving reply-Employee had foregone his right to submit his
reply-However employer not absolved of the duty to hold an ex-parte en- D
quiry-Disciplinary authority to communicate copy of enquiry report and seek
an explanation from the employee-Appropriate orders. to be passed thereafter
in accordance with law-Till then the. employee deemed to be under suspen-·
sion.
                                                                            E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12885 of
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.93 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 12480of1987.
                                                                            F
        Irshad Ahmad for A.K. Srivastava for the Appellants.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Though notice was sent to the respondent on January 25, 199.), till
date neither acknowledgment nor unserved cover has been received back.      G
Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served
on the respondent. He is set ex-pane.

        Leave granted.

        We have heard learned counsel for the apj>ellant.                   H
                                   623
    624                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

         This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Al-
  lahabad High Court made on March 15, 1993 in Writ Petition No. 12480/87.
  The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as a Senior
  Marketing Inspector, a charge-sheet was served on him on November 23,
  1984 calling upon him to explain the charges for committing gross ir-
  regularities in the movement of wheat outside the State of U.P. Instead of
B submitting reply to the charge-sheet, he,; went on dilly-dallying in submitting
  the reply. Several letters addressed to the respondent proved ineffective.
  Resultantly, the appellants took a decision on June 26, 1987 holding that
  the respondent was found guilty of misappropriation. Consequently, he
  came to be dismissed from service. The respondent challenged the same
C in the writ petition. The High Court has set aside the order in the impugned
  order holding that the documents have not been supplied to the respondent
  and, therefore, the action was vitiated by error of law. We do not find any
  justification in the view taken by the High Court; the substratum of the
  result is that the appellants have not conducted any enquiry though the
D respondent had been avoiding to give the reply. Since the respondent had
  avoided to submit the reply, he has forgone his right to submit his reply.
  Nonetheless, the appellants are not absolved of the duty to hold an ex-parte
  enquiry to find out whether or not the charge has been proved. In the event
  of the Enquiry Officer find that the charge is proved, he would submit that
  report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority should com-
E municate the copy of the enquiry report to the respondent and seek an
  explanation for the proposed action thereon. If the respondent submits any
   explanation, the same may be taken into consideration and appropriate
   order may be passed according to law. Until then, the respondent must be
  deemed to be under suspension.                                                ·
F            The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without
    costs.

    G.N.                                                         Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "dismissal"Sign in to search