Allahabad High Court
Hari Om Sharma vs U.P.Cooperative Spinning Mills Fedn ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT A No. -4647 of 1999
Hari Om Sharma
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Fedn Ltd. And Others
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Ajit Kumar, Ravi Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Dhananjai Awasthi, S.C.
Judgment Reserved on 01.9.2025
Delivered on 10 .9.2025
Court No. -5
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjai Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused written submissions filed by both the parties.
2. This writ petition is of the year 1999 and now it is finally decided after 26 years.
3. On the basis of records, Court finds that delay in final decision was also due to carelessness of learned counsel for the petitioner, since this writ petition was firstly dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 16.1.2001 and it was restored to its original number vide order dated 13.2.2001. Secondly it was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 8.9.2008 and it was restored after 9 years on 5.1.2017. This writ petition was again dismissed for want of prosecution for third time on 10.3.2017 and was restored after 4 years i.e on 6.10 2021.
4. Petitioner has declared his age about 50 years when this writ petition was filed in the year 1999, therefore, presently he must be about 76 years old.
5. The petitioner was appointed on 15.3.1988 as Manager Systems and Monitoring in the respondent mill run by the U.P. Government. He was confirmed on the said post on 21.8.1990 and was suspended vide order dated 19.4.1997 and was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.8.1997 that he was not diligent to pursue the case filed against the respondents which led to loss of Rs.55,102.80/-to the Mill, therefore, an order was passed against them. Similarly, he remained careless in other cases also and did not discharge his duties diligently. When he was attached in the year 1997 and was transferred to other place, he did not join there and went on unauthorised leave and did not put his signatures on the attendance register. He was also charged with an allegation that he was indolent towards his duties.
6. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet dated 27.10.1997 and within a short period of five days, Inquiry Report dated 3.11.1997 was submitted, whereby Charge Nos.1,2,4 and 6 we are found to be proved, whereas Charge Nos.3 and 5 were not found proved.
7. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 3.11.1997 issued by the Disciplinary Authority to which he submitted his reply on 20.11.1997 and within one day i.e. on 21.11.1997 petitioner was served with major punishment of removal from service forthwith. Appeal thereof was dismissed vide order dated 6.3.1998.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due process was not followed by the Inquiry Officer. No date or time was fixed for conducting inquiry. Even petitioner was not called to record his statement, as such the inquiry proceedings was in violation of principles of natural justice.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the said period, number of employees were removed from service by the respondents and said orders were challenged before this Court, wherein this Court has set aside the orders on ground that inquiry was conducted ex-parte and behind the back of the delinquent.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a co-ordinate bench judgement of this Court in Writ-A No.37583 of 1998, Yogendra Prakash Vs.G.M.(Admin) U.P. Co.S. Mills Fed. Ltd. & Ors. decided on 19.8.2015.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that facts of each case are different. In the present case, petitioner has submitted his reply and since the nature of allegations do not require any oral evidence, therefore, on the basis of the reply, inquiry was concluded. The reply submitted by the petitioner during inquiry was found not satisfactory.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that presently U.P.Cooperative Spinning Mills is under liquidation and is effectively closed and all the employees who were working at relevant time were granted Voluntary Retirement.
13. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.
14. This writ petition is pending for the last 26 years. As referred above, this writ petition remained dismissed for want of prosecution on three times and effectively remained dismissed for about 13 years, therefore, even if the Court comes to the conclusion that inquiry was not properly conducted, relief sought by the petitioner that he may be reinstated into service and apply for voluntary retirement cannot be granted.
15. In the present case, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and he has submitted his reply to it. The nature of allegations prima-facie do not require any oral evidence since it was the petitioner himself who could explain why he remained lethargic towards his duties and failed to take proper Pairvis of the case of respondents as well as remained absent without any valid reason, therefore, on basis of nature of allegations and unsatisfactory reply submitted by the petitioner, charges were rightly found to be proved. Still considering that it may be a case that petitioner might not have been awarded major punishment of removal from service as well as that in similar circumstances, this Court has granted relief to the other employees, therefore, ignoring the carelessness of learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself and after considering overall circumstances of the case as well as that in case on basis of proved charges some other punishment was passed, the petitioner was able to work for some more years and might get benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, therefore, relief sought by the petitioner is moulded by taking into consideration that petitioner is now aged about 76 years also in following manner:
a) Impugned orders dated 21.11.1997, 6.3.1998 and 24.10.1998 are set-aside. However, instead of passing an order of reinstatement of petitioner in service, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that petitioner be monetary compensated and for that responders are directed to pay Rs.5 lakhs to him.
b) At this stage Court takes note that in case respondent Mill is under liquidation, the petitioner can make a claim accordingly on basis of this order.
16. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 10, 2025
SB
