IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 334 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.01.2011 Dharor Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. Dharor. ...Appellant Versus Darshan Singh and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J.(Oral) CM No. 916 of 2010 Heard. Delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. LPA No. 334 of 2010 This appeal is directed against an order of learned Single Judge dated 01.12.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3319 of 1987 whereby the termination of the services of respondent-workman was found to be untenable in law. Learned Single Judge, however, did not grant any reinstatement to the respondent-workman as termination had taken place almost two decades earlier. However, compensation amounting to Rs. 3.5 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% if the amount of compensation is not deposited within two months, was awarded. Aggrieved the Management/Employer is before this Court in appeal. LPA No. 334 of 2010 [2] A perusal of the order of learned Single Judge (para No. 5) would go to show that it is an admitted fact that prior to termination/discharge of the workman, no charge sheet was served and no enquiry was held. Learned Single Judge on the basis of said findings, therefore, came to the conclusion that termination/discharge was void-abinitio being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Before us, the said facts are not controverted. It is a cardinal and an elementary principle of law that before any punitive action is taken against an employee, he has to be given a fair opportunity to defend himself against the charges that may be brought against him. In the present case, though the employer contends that workman was guilty of embezzlement and other mis- conduct, no charge-sheet was prepared and served on the workman; no enquiry was held and the workman was given no opportunity whatsoever to defend himself. In such a situation, we find no infirmity in the conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge either with regard to the termination or discharge of the workman or the compensation that has been awarded. Consequently, we find no ground to keep the appeal pending any longer. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 05.01.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'