Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Shamrao Bhale, was employed as Head Accountant with Godavari Garments Ltd. (respondent No. 1). A departmental inquiry was initiated against him along with two other employees on charges of dereliction of duty. A charge-sheet was issued on 27/03/1995. The inquiry proceeded ex-parte, and the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 31/07/1996 by the Executive Director. The petitioner challenged the removal order by way of a writ petition. The court examined the inquiry proceedings and found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The inquiry officer had proceeded ex-parte without sufficient cause and had not considered the petitioner's request for adjournment. The findings of the inquiry officer were based on no evidence and were perverse. The court held that the inquiry was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order of removal was set aside. The court directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages, as the petitioner had not worked during the period of removal. The petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Domestic Inquiry - Violation of Natural Justice - The inquiry officer failed to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, as the inquiry was conducted ex-parte without sufficient cause and the petitioner's request for adjournment was not considered. Held that the inquiry was vitiated due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice (Paras 5-8). B) Service Law - Evidence - Appreciation - The findings of the inquiry officer were based on no evidence and were perverse, as the charges of dereliction of duty were not substantiated by any material on record. Held that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct (Paras 9-10). C) Service Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - The court directed reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages, as the petitioner had not worked during the period of removal. Held that reinstatement without back wages was appropriate in the circumstances (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the removal of the petitioner from service was valid and in accordance with principles of natural justice and the standing orders.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition in part. The order of removal dated 31/07/1996 was quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 1 was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages. The petitioner was not entitled to back wages as he had not worked during the period of removal.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Domestic inquiry
- Reasonable opportunity
- Evidence appreciation
- Proportionality of punishment
