1984 PLC(CS) 880

In the titled appeal the permission of holding enquiry has been challenged by the appellant, He also claims back benefits. The facts are 'that the appellant was terminated on the allegation of shortage of some bags of Urea fertilizers. The penalty was imposed without holding any enquiry. The learned lower Court, ‑therefore, vide impugned decision. dated 31st January, 1982 directed the reinstatement of the appellant but permitted the respondent to hold enquiry. The question of back benefits was left to depend upon the result of the enquiry.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no charge‑sheet was given, therefore, no question of giving permission to hold enquiry could arise. No doubt in para. 5 (d) of the petition such a point was raised but it was denied in the written statement. The appellant said in his statement that no enquiry was held regarding the allegations leveled against him. What actually he said reads as under :‑

This shows that charge‑sheet was given. It was the discretion of the learned lower Court to allow or not to bold enquiry, so the impugned order cannot be interfered with. This cannot be said that the permission is un-judicious. Since the appellant claims back benefits also, he is likely to get them if in the enquiry he is not proved to be guilty of any of the allegations. However, the learned lower Court should have fixed sour period for starting the enquiry, because it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as yet no enquiry has been held.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I dismiss the appeal with the direction that if enquiry is not started by the respondent within one month of the date of this decision, the appellant will be entitled to back benefits.

A, E. Appeal dismissed.