APPOINTING AUTHORITY Vs. R.K. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, a Research Assistant in the appellant institute, was removed from service by order dated 22.11.1999. The order of removal having been quashed by the High Court and consequential orders in favour of the respondent having been passed, the institute is in appeal on grant of leave.

(2.) The order of removal has been quashed on the ground of denial of opportunity to the respondent to appear and participate in the disciplinary enquiry thus violating the principles of natural justice. The High Court, referring to paras 31 and 32 of the counter-affidavit filed by the institute, in opposition to the writ petition, has come to the conclusion that the respondent employee should have been intimated about the date, time and place of enquiry and the name of the enquiry officer and the evidence should have been recorded in his presence and he should also have been given opportunity to adduce his evidence despite the fact that the petitioner (respondent herein) never replied to the charge-sheet. The Judgement proceeds on the basis that the respondent was never informed about the name of the enquiry officer or about the holding of the enquiry. That is also the stand of the respondent before this Court in the counter-affidavit filed, wherein it has been, inter alia, alleged that no information about Shri Prahlad Narain having been appointed as enquiry officer was sent to him. It has further been alleged by the respondent that the enquiry officer never informed him of the order in pursuance of which he had been so appointed nor had he informed him of any date of enquiry. Further, the plea taken in the counter-affidavit is that enquiry report was not supplied to the respondent and he was not afforded any opportunity to rebut the finding given in the enquiry report.

(3.) We have heard Mr S. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. We had no assistance from the respondent since none appeared for him either yesterday or today.