INDRANI BAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant is the widow of one Narayan Naidu, a turner in gun carriage factory at Jabalpur. On 15/4/1980, it was alleged, that he attempted to commit theft of 50 mm grill. On 17/4/1980, a charge memo was given. On 26/6/1980, the General Manager appointed the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry against him. The delinquent made a representation to higher authorities that the enquiry officer was biased against him and requested to appoint any other impartial person to conduct enquiry against him. Instead of acceding to the request, the higher authorities had directed the delinquent on 23/10/1980 to participate in the enquiry. On 20/11/1980, 24/11/1980 and 30/11/1980, witnesses were examined ex parte. But, unfortunately, on 14/12/1980, the delinquent was set ex parte as he did not appear before the enquiry officer. On 5/3/1981, he made another representation to recall the witnesses already examined for cross-examination and to give him a further opportunity to examine himself and his witnesses in rebuttal. The authorities directed the delinquent, by their order dated 26/9/1981, to attend the enquiry when fixed and cooperate with the enquiry officer. Pursuant to this direction, as found from the record, that the enquiry officer, instead of reopening the matter and giving him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses already examined or to examine himself as a witness or his witnesses, by a letter dated 26/11/1991 has stated thus:

(3.) Therefore, the delinquent did not submit his written brief and an order of dismissal from service was passed and on appeal, it was confirmed.