GH RASOOL BHAT Vs. INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been submitted praying to quash the termination order of the petitioner bearing No. RC/FIR/1008 -09 dated: 02 -05 -1987. It appears that the petitioner, an employee of Indian Red Cross Society, was found absent from duty from 18th January, 1986 to 27th January. 1986. He was placed under suspension and was asked to explain the reasons for his absence. The explanation for absence, submitted by the petitioner, does not seem to have been accepted by the respondents and a full -fledged enquiry was conducted resulting in termination of the services of the petitioner vide Order No. RC/FIR/1008 -09 dated 2nd May, 1987. It is this order which is sought to be quashed.

(2.) THE main submissions made in the petition are that the petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 32/1986 under sections 304 -A/314, 120 -B of Ranbir Penal Code and was detained in Police Station from 18th January, 1986to27th January, 1986. According to the petitioner, on account of this disability, he could not attend his duty. When the petitioner was released in the evening of 27th January, 1986, he reported to duty on 28th January, 1986, but was not allowed to mark his attendance. The petitioner was placed under suspension without any justification and, in The morning of 20th January, 1986, wife of the petitioner was also arrested. The enquiry was conducted at the back of the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to cross -examine the witnesses. The officers, holding the enquiry were not duly appointed and, as such, the enquiry was not held by the competent persons in accordance with law. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

(3.) THE stand and the submissions of the respondents taken in the reply -affidavit and arguments is that the writ petition is not maintainable against the Indian Red Cross Society as the Organisation is a voluntary Society and not an instrumentality of the State. Therefore, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. It is further submitted that the petitioner was on unauthorized absence from 18th January, 1986 to 27th January, 1986 and was not in police lockup on all these days. The petitioner, according to the respondents, was in the police lock -up only on 20th January, 1986 and suspension order was served on him on 25th January, 1986. The petitioner associated with the enquiry and submitted that he did not want to give any defence to refute the charge and, as such, the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure. The respondents have denied that the statements of witnesses were recorded at the back of the petitioner, depriving the petitioner the right to cross -examine them. It is also submitted that the officer appointed to conduct the enquiry was competent to hold the enquiry under law. The petitioner was provided with a copy of the enquiry report. On these submissions, the respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed.