# Om Pal Singh v. District Development Officer, Ghaziabad & others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 6
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-pal-singh-v-district-development-officer-ghaziabad-others-39550
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
6
writ jurisdiction. There are well settled
limitations on such powers.

5. The decisions that the learned
counsel for the petitioner cited were cases
where a public duty was involved, and in
such exceptional cases a writ was issued to
a private body. There is no such public
duty involved here.

6. In several decisions it has been
held that a writ does not ordinarily lie
against private bodies e.g. Praga Tools
Corp. Vs. Imannel, AIR 1969 SC 1306,
Carlsbad Minerral Water Mfg.Co.Ltd. V.
Jagtiani AIR1952 Cal 315, C.M.Khanna
V. NCERT, AIR 1992 SC 76 etc. Thus,
while exercising writ jurisdiction the Court
must keep in mind the history and origin of
the high prerogative writs in England and
in India, and it cannot be guided by the
words used in Article 226 alone. The
ordinary principle therefore remains that a
writ will not ordinarily be issued to a
private body (except a writ of habeas
corpus).

7. In Scooter India Versus Vijai
Eldred 1998 (6) SCC 549, the Supreme
Court held that a writ should not be
ordinarily entertained when there is an
alternative remedy under industrial law.
This has also been held by a Full Bench of
this Court in Chandrama Singh Vs.
Managing Director (supra).

8. Since admittedly the respondent
company is a purely private body and is
not instrumentality of the State and since
the petitioner has an alternative remedy
under industrial law in our opinion, we are
not inclined to interfere in this case.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that in a large number of labour
courts/industrial tribunals in U.P. there is
no Presiding Officer in view of certain
directions given by this Court in certain
writ petitions in pursuance of the Supreme
Court decision in State of Masarastra
versus
labour
Law
Practitioners'
Association. AIR 1998 SC 1232. The
petitioner
may
approach
the
State
Government
for
appointing
Presiding
Officers
to
these
bodies
and
we
recommend to the State Government to
make appointments to fil up the posts ass
expeditiously as possible.

Petition is dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

2P 3DO 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVHV
'LVWULFW 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU *KD]LDEDG
DQG RWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 9LQRG 6LQKD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 61 6ULYDVWDYD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

'LVPLVVDO RUGHU FKDUJHV PHQWLRQHG LQ
WKH
FKDUJH
VKHHW
UHSOLHG
E\
WKH
HPSOR\HH RU HQTXLU\ RIILFHU VXEPLWWHG
UHSRUW ZLWKRXW H[DPLQLQJ DQ\ ZLWQHVV RU
IL[LQJ
DQ\
GDWH
IRU
GHSDUWPHQWDO
SURFHHGLQJ
SHUVXDQW
WR
WKH
HQTXLU\
UHSRUW GLVPLVVDO RUGHU SDVVHG ± FDQ QRW
XSKHOG
+HOG
3All] Om Pal Singh V. District Development Officer, Ghaziabad & others
7
7KH
GLVFLSOLQDU\
DXWKRULW\
WRR
DIWHU
UHFHLYLQJ WKH UHSRUW RI WKH HQTXLU\ RIILFHU
QHLWKHU JDYH D FRS\ RI WKH HQTXLU\ UHSRUW
WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU QRU LVVXHG DQ\ VKRZ
FDXVH WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU DQG SDVVHG WKH
RUGHU RI GLVPLVVDO RQ 7KH HQWLUH
HQTXLU\ SURFHHGLQJV DQG WKH GLVPLVVDO
RUGHU SDVVHG E\ WKH UHVSRQGHQWV RQ WKH
EDVLV RI VXFK DQ HQTXLU\ UHSRUW FDQQRW EH
XSKHOGSDUD

By the Court

1. The petitioner was appointed on a
class-IV post in June, 1991 by Principal,
Regional Institute of Rural Development,
Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur. In 1992
the petitioner was transferred and posted at
Regional Institute of Rural Development,
Dadri, Ghaziabad (now District Gautam
Budh Nagar). In 1997 the petitioner was
given an adverse entry for going on leave.
He filed a representation against it making
allegations against respondent no. 5. He
also resisted his posting at the residence of
respondent no.4. On 27.11.1997 the
respondent no. 4 issued a notice to
petitioner and called for his explanation
about reports from office that his work was
not satisfactory. It was also mentioned that
he misbehaved with employees under
influence of liquor. It was also alleged that
a sum of Rs.1800/- given to him for
distribution to trainees at Bhojpur was not
handed over to officer. On 3.12.1997 the
petitioner gave his explanation and denied
every allegation. The respondent was not
satisfied with the explanation and he
issued a charge sheet on 27.4.1998. And an
enquiry officer was appointed on 1.5.1998.
The enquiry officer on 14.5.98 wrote a
letter to the petitioner informing him that
he has been appointed enquiry officer and
if the petitioner wants to say anything he
may inform in writing so that enquiry
proceedings be completed. The petitioner
on 16.5.98 submitted his reply to the letter
dated 14.5.98 mentioning that he has
already submitted the reply to the charge
sheet and it may be treated as his reply and
he has nothing further to say. Thereafter,
the enquiry officer submitted his report on
4.5.98. The respondents did not give a
copy of the enquiry report nor issued any
show cause notice to the petitioner. By
order dated 29.5.98 passed by respondent
no. 2 petitioner has been dismissed from
service. It is this order of dismissal dated
29.5.98 annexure-16 to the writ petition,
which has been challenged by petitioner in
the instant writ petition.

I have heard Shri Vinod Sinha learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N.
Srivastava learned standing counsel for the
respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has urged that no opportunity of hearing
was given by the enquiry officer to the
petitioner nor any date was fixed by the
enquiry officer. Copy of enquiry report
was not given to the petitioner. The
disciplinary authority did not issue show
cause
notice
to the petitioner after
receiving the copy of enquiry report and
the impugned dismissal order has been
passed by the respondents against the
petitioner in violation of principles of
natural justice. On the other hand, learned
standing counsel has produced the records
and has supported the impugned order. He
urged that principles of natural justice was
complied with. He placed reliance on letter
of the petitioner dated 16.5.98 wherein the
petitioner has written that since he has
already submitted his reply to the charge
sheet, nothing more is to be stated by him.

3. The charge sheet was issued to the
petitioner
on
27.4.98
to
which the
INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
8
petitioner submitted a reply on 29.4.98.
Enquiry officer was appointed on 1.5.98.
The enquiry officer wrote a letter to the
petitioner on 14.5.98 that in case petitioner
wants to say anything in defense he may
say so in writing so that enquiry
proceedings be completed. The petitioner
submitted his reply on 16.5.98 stating that
he has already submitted his reply to the
charge sheet and it may be treated as his
reply. He has nothing more to say.
Thereafter, the enquiry officer completed
the enquiry proceedings without fixing any
date for evidence or for examination of
witnesses. He submitted his report on
21.5.98. The letter dated 14.5.98 by the
enquiry officer any reply of the petitioner
dated 16.5.98 did not absolve the enquiry
officer
from
holding
the
enquiry
proceedings,
in
accordance
with
the
principles of natural justice. The record
produced by standing counsel establishes
that no date was fixed by the enquiry
officer after letter dated 14.5.98 was
replied by petitioner on 16.5.98. The
charges against the petitioner were factual.
They were denied by the petitioner.
Therefore, it was incumbent for the
enquiry
officer
to
have
examined
witnesses in support of the charges and
record finding that they were proved. It
was obligatory to afford opportunity of
hearing to petitioner to defend the charges.
He was required to fix dates for holding
enquiry proceedings. Even if the petitioner
would not have appeared the charges could
be held proved only after examination of
witnesses and production of record to
support the allegations. In absence of any
date fixed by the enquiry officer for
holding enquiry proceedings, the entire
enquiry proceedings were vitiated. They
were carried out in violation of principles
of
natural
justice.
The
disciplinary
authority too after receiving the report of
the enquiry officer neither gave a copy of
the enquiry report to the petitioner nor
issued any show cause to the petitioner and
passed the order of dismissal on 29.5.98.
The entire enquiry proceedings and the
dismissal order passed by the respondents
on the basis of such an enquiry report
cannot be upheld.

4. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petitioner succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned dismissal order dated
29.5.98 passed by respondent no. 2
annexure-16 to the writ petition is quashed
with all consequential benefits of service
to the petitioner. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner in
service and pay his entire arrears of salary
within a period of two months from the
date a certified copy of this order is
produced before respondent no. 2.

The petitioner shall be entitled to his
costs.
Petition Allowed.

$33(//$
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
7( -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $35,/
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $35,/
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 55. 75,9(', -
7+( +21·%/( 55. 75,9(', -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&ULPLQDO $SSHDO 1R RI

8GKR DQG DQRWKHU
«$SSHOODQWV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQWV
6KUL 3. %LVDULD
6KUL 1. 6D[HQD
6KUL 6% 6LQJK
6KUL 5. *XSWD
6KUL *6 &KDWXUYHGL