SOM DUTT AND OTHERS Vs. PUNJAB COMMUNICATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have impugned orders dated 15.5.2000 (Annexures P-4 to P-7), by which their services were terminated. It may be noticed that petitioners No.1 and 2 are stated to have died. Therefore, the petition qua them is abated. The petition qua petitioners No.3 and 4 is being answered as follows:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Clause 14.5 of the Standing Order, which is extracted herein-below:-

(3.) Concededly the aforesaid procedure has not been followed and rather the respondents have made a reference to Annexure R-2 whereby a conscious decision was taken to dispense with the enquiry. It may be necessary to state here that the reason, which led to the passing of the orders, was the involvement of the petitioners in an incident where a Manager of the Corporation was manhandled and subjected to violence. FIR was registered in this regard where the names of the petitioners were specifically mentioned. It is not out of place to mention here that two of the petitioners, namely, petitioners No.1 and 2 expired before the culmination of the criminal proceedings against them whereas petitioners No.3 and 4, who are now prosecuting the petition, were convicted under the provisions of Section 323 IPC. In appeal, they were released on probation.