Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Ms. Aashnaa Bhatia, Mr. Abhinav Pandey and Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Advs v. G L SAGAR

Judgment

1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent applicable to this Court challenges judgment dated 31 January 2025, passed by a

learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) 10023/20161.

2. The services of the respondent, who was working as General Manager (Project Executive) with EDCIL (India), was terminated by order dated 1 April 2003. He challenged the said termination before this Court by way of CWP 3009/2003. While the writ petition was Signature Not Verified 1 G. L. Sagar v EDCIL (India) Ltd. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:43:29 LPA 187/2025 pending, the appellant, vide order dated 4 February 2004, withdrew the termination order dated 1 April 2003 and permitted the respondent to join duty on 6 February 2004. In the circumstances, CWP 3009/2003 was disposed of as infructuous on 25 February 2004. This Court also directed that the respondent be paid his wages for the period 1 April 2003 to 6 February 2004 as per applicable Rules.

3. The appellant again issued a charge memo to the respondent on 9 April 2004 which was challenged by the respondent before this Court by way of WP (C) 6755/2004. By order dated 12 January 2005, this Court disposed of the said WP (C) 6755/2004 with the consent of parties, appointing a retried Additional District and Sessions Judge as Inquiry Officer2 to inquire into the charges against the respondent.

4. The IO, vide his inquiry report dated 18 June 2005, held that the charges against the respondent were not proved. Accordingly, the respondent was permitted to join duty.

5. The respondent was, thereafter, once again proceeded against, by being placed under suspension by the appellant vide order dated 12 January 2007. This was followed by a charge sheet dated 3 April 2007, issued under Rule 25 of EDCIL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 20033.

6. For the purposes of the present order, it is not necessary to enter into the specifics of the charges against the respondent. Suffice it to Signature Not Verified 2 “IO”, hereinafter 3 “the 2003 Rules”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:43:29 LPA 187/2025 state that the IO, appointed to inquire into the charges against the respondent, tendered his inquiry report on 6 June 2008, holding Article-I (i), (iii) and (iv) as ‘not proved’ and (ii) as ‘proved’; Article- II as ‘proved’; Article-III as ‘partially proved with the finding that the respondent could not be blamed entirely for the allegations levelled’; Article-IV as ‘not proved’; Article-V ‘there was no evidence that CO called Motwani a murderer’; Article-VI as ‘proved’; Articles-VII and IX ‘while the CO should have attended office on 11 December 2006 and his declaration that Management had resorted to illegal lock out is incorrect, his absence of 01 day only does not deserve to be viewed as a serious misconduct, allegation that CO prevented other employees from entering office is not substantiated’; and Article-VIII as ‘not proved’.

7. A copy of the inquiry report was provided to the respondent, who represented against the inquiry report on 18 July 2008. By order dated 9 September 2008, the Chairman and Managing Director4 of the appellant, in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority5 of the respondent, imposed, on the respondent, the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect, under Rule 25 of the 2003 Rules, with a further direction that the period of suspension from 12 January 2007 to 9 September 2008 would not be treated as having been spent on duty. The respondent preferred a statutory appeal against the said order under Rule 32 of 2003 Rules. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20 February 2009, without granting any hearing to the respondent. Signature Not Verified 4 “CMD”, hereinafter 5 “DA”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:43:29 LPA 187/2025

8. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent re-approached this Court by way of WP (C) 11487/2009, which was disposed of, by this Court, on 31 August 2015. Among the contentions of the respondent which found favour with this Court was the plea that, before penalising the respondent with dismissal from service, the DA did not issue a disagreement note, as required by the judgments of the Supreme Court in, Yoginath D. Bagde v State of Maharashtra6 and Punjab National Bank v Kunj Behari Misra7.

9. Accordingly, this Court remanded the matter to the DA to issue a note of disagreement to the respondent, in respect of the charges which were found by the IO not to have been proved and with which he proposed to disagree, with liberty to pass a fresh order. The appellant filed LPA 111/2016 against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 19 February 2016. SLP (C) 7569/2016, preferred thereagainst, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29 March 2016.

10. Accordingly, the appellant issued Office Order dated 6 April 2016 to the respondent, directing him to report for duty on 7 April

2016. He did so, and re-joined duty.

11. Purportedly in accordance with the liberty granted by this Court, the DA issued a disagreement note to the respondent on 5 May 2016, seeking a reply from the respondent. The respondent replied on Signature Not Verified