IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.17711-CAT of 2008 Decided on : 04.10.2008 Union of India & others ....Petitioners VERSUS Shiv Nath & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present:- Mr. K. K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. M. M. KUMAR J. The Union of India has approached this Court by challenging order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the tribunal') in O.A. No.216/PB/06. The Tribunal has found that there is flagrant violation of clauses 12(2i) and (iv) of Model Standing orders, 1982. According to the afore-mentioned provision which have been noticed in the impugned order, the Union of India-petitioner was required to inform the applicant-respondent in writing regarding grant of opportunity to explain the circumstances on record available against him. Even, approval of the Manager of the Establishment is also mandatory. There is discretion granted to the manager or employer to institute independent inquiry before dealing with the charges against a temporary workman like the applicant-respondent under the Rules. The Tribunal further noticed that no charge-sheet or no memo of allegation was prepared CWP NO.17711-CAT of 2008 -2- or sent to the applicant-respondent before terminating his service vide order dated 21.07.2005 which has been found to be cryptic and not supported by any evidence that could establish his guilt or theft of 30 liters of farm produced milk from the cattle yard under Military Farm, Ferozepur for the period from 20.07.1999 to 31.05.2004. The Tribunal quashed the order dated 21.07.2005 by placing reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court including MMRDA Officers Association v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority & another, 2005 (2) RSJ 362 and Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others Vs. P. C. Kakkar, 2003(4) SCC 364. The Tribunal while quashing the termination order dated 21.07.2005 challenged by the workman- respondent has granted liberty to the petitioners to proceed against the workman-respondent in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice. The view taken by the tribunal is discernible from para 23 of this order which reads thus:- “Thus, in view of our observations as above, without delving into other legal aspects raised by the applicant, impugned order dated 21.07.2005 (A/1) which goes to the root of the case and is held to be not sustainable, is hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the applicant after following the principles of natural justice as observed herein above by supplying him copies of statements. Inquiry Report and other relevant documents along with finding of the Board of Officers. Applicant may file his defense before the concerned authorities and thereafter, they are directed to pass appropriate, reasoned and speaking orders also keeping in view CWP NO.17711-CAT of 2008 -3- that the applicant was otherwise exonerated from the criminal court along with Ashok Kumar who has been imposed with penalty of stoppage of two increments only. Applicant may be allowed to join his duties but he is not held entitled to back wages for the period he remained out of job on the principle of “no work no pay”. Needful be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and find that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity, warranting interference of this Court. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any violation of rules, provision or legislation which would required admission of the instant petition. After recording findings of flagrant violation of the bare rules dealing with holding of departmental inquiry, the tribunal has set aside the order of termination passed by the petitioners against workman-respondent. The petitioners have not drawn charge-sheet nor any evidence has been adduced before the Enquiry Officer and the provision of clause 12 of the standing orders have been flagrantly violated. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (M. M. Kumar) Judge (Jora Singh) Judge October 04, 2008 ashish