MATA DIN Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the review of the order dated July 16, 1991 by which I had allowed CWP No. 2177 of 1987. At the hearing of the writ petition, no one had appeared on behalf of the respondent-applicant. An effort has been made to justify the absence of the learned counsel. Without going into that controversy, I have heard Mr. M.S. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant on merits of the case. He has submitted that even though no enquiry had been held into the charge before passing the order of termination, but on the submission of an appeal by the workman, the Superintending Engineer had enquired into the matter. He has sought to produce the original file in support of this contention.

(2.) The Labour Court, while considering this matter, had inter alia, observed as under :

(3.) Mr. Jain has stated before me that even though no enquiry had been conducted by the Executive Engineer, but the Superintending Engineer had in fact conducted an enquiry after the workman had submitted his appeal. After recording evidence, the Superintending Engineer had confirmed the order of termination. Assuming this to be the factual position, it is clear that no enquiry was held prior to the passing of the order of termination. A subsequent enquiry as a result of which the original order of termination is stated to have been affirmed, is not contemplated under the rules. In any event, the authorities had already made up their mind. It was wholly violative of principles of natural justice to conduct an enquiry after the punishment had been imposed. If the appellate authority was satisfied that the order of termination is vitiated on account of a proper entry not having been held. The proper course would have been to set aside the order of termination and to order an enquiry. This was admittedly not done.