Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus T.P. LAL SRIVASTAVA
- Decided
- 20 September 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 623 · 1996 INSC 1090
- Also cited as
- (1996) 10 SCC 702
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Though notice was sent to the respondent on January 25, 199.), till date neither acknowledgment nor unserved cover has been received back. Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served on the respondent. He is set ex-pane.
p. 623, margin F
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the apj>ellant.
p. 623, margin G
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court made on March 15, 1993 in Writ Petition No. 12480/87. The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as a Senior Marketing Inspector, a charge-sheet was served on him on November 23, 1984 calling upon him to explain the charges for committing gross irregularities in the movement of wheat outside the State of U.P. Instead of submitting reply to the charge-sheet, went on dilly-dallying in submitting the reply. Several letters addressed to the respondent proved ineffective. Resultantly, the appellants took a decision on June 26, 1987 holding that the respondent was found guilty of misappropriation. Consequently, he came to be dismissed from service. The respondent challenged the same in the writ petition. The High Court has set aside the order in the impugned order holding that the documents have not been supplied to the respondent and, therefore, the action was vitiated by error of law. We do not find any justification in the view taken by the High Court; the substratum of the result is that the appellants have not conducted any enquiry though the respondent had been avoiding to give the reply. Since the respondent had avoided to submit the reply, he has forgone his right to submit his reply. Nonetheless, the appellants are not absolved of the duty to hold an ex-parte enquiry to find out whether or not the charge has been proved. In the event of the Enquiry Officer find that the charge is proved, he would submit that report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority should communicate the copy of the enquiry report to the respondent and seek an explanation for the proposed action thereon. If the respondent submits any explanation, the same may be taken into consideration and appropriate order may be passed according to law. Until then, the respondent must be deemed to be under suspension. ·
p. 624
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 624, margin F