UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. SHARMANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of This Court from the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge in Second Appeal No. 195 of 1965. When this appeal was placed for hearing before a Division Bench, it noticed an apparent conflict between two earlier decisions in Sharmanand v. Superintendent, Gun Carriage Factory (1960) M. P. L. J. 110 : A. I. R. 1960 M. P. 178, and Kailashchand v. G. M. Ordnance Factory (1965) M. P. L. J. 881 : A. LR. 1966 M. P. 82. Accordingly, it referred the appeal to a larger Bench. The whole appeal is before us. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants (Union of India and the Superintendent, Gun Carriage Factory) and the learned Counsel for Sharmanand respondent, on all questions involved in the appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent was a turner in the employment of the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur. The factory is owned by the Union of India and is administered by the Ministry of Defence of the Union Government. On September, 1958, the plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet containing the following charges: (1) On the night of August 25, 1958, he scaled the walls of the Tool Godown Machine Shop and thus attempted to commit theft of the employer's property. (2) While he was engaged in committing theft, he realised that the attempt to commit theft was exposed and he made good his escape quickly through the verandah. (3) In doing so, he unauthorisedly left his section in an abnormal way. (4) On the said night, he unauthorisedly absented from the section from 12. 00 hours to implement his planned attempted theft. An enquiry was held against the plaintiff. The said charges were held proved against him. He was removed from service on December 9, 1958.

(3.) THE plaintiff approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by a writ petition for quashing the order of his removal : Sharmanand v. Superintendent, Gun Carriage Factory, (Jabalpur supra ). On August 7, 1959, that petition was allowed and the removal was quashed, solely on the ground that copies of earlier statements of certain witnesses were not supplied to the plaintiff. It was, however, observed that the department would not be precluded from continuing the enquiry or holding a fresh enquiry against the petitioner on the same charges.