1971 PLP 125 (PLC)

We have got to consider whether the dismissal of the peti tioner is valid and proper. If not what benefit the petitioner is entitled to? It appears that the petitioner was charge‑sheeted for two incidents. One on 18‑11‑1969 and another on 2‑12‑1969. On 18‑11‑1969 the petitioner went out of the factory by some unauthorised passage and remained outside for one hour and then entered into the Factory through a gate, which was not open for workers in spite of protest by the Darwan on duty. On 2‑12‑1969 the petitioner quarrelled with Giasuddin and Mida Ali and thus exhibited disorderly behaviours. In both the charge‑sheets the petitioner has been asked to submit his explanations within 3 days from the receipts of the charge‑sheets. Law provides that full 3 days time should be given for explanation. There is thus a violation of man datary provision of law. There is some evidence that the petitioner went, out of Factory by jumping over the wall and came back sometime after. This is an act of indiscip line. The enquiry report does not specify the nature of mis conduct as defined‑ in section 17 (3) of the Standing Orders 'Act. There is no clear finding on this point. Regarding the incident our 2‑12‑1969 it is said that the petitioner quarrelled with Giasuddin Misir Ali. The evidence of Giasuddin shows that he had practically not quarrelled with Asid Ali. The evidence of Misir Ali does not also point to any conclusive proof of disorderly conduct. No enquiry report has been submitted regarding this incident. There is also no reason why the same has not been submitted. Considering the entire materials before me I am of opinion that ‑ the findings on the enquiry are not based on cogent reasons. Then again the reply to the grievance petition militates against certain provision of law. It does not show that any opportunity was given to the petitioner for being heard, nor there was any enquiry after the grievance application. In view of all these I find that the petitioner's dismissal from service is not proper and valid. Regard being had to the past conduct of the petitioner as complained by the 2nd party and unwillingness of the Administration I do not like to thrust the petitioner on the administration by ordering re‑instatement. Alternatively I am inclined to give full termination benefits to the petitioner. In arriving at the decision I have fully considered the opinion C of the learned members. In the result, the petitioner will get the following benefits from the second party: (a) Three months' pay in lieu of notice‑Rs. 450, (b) 145 days' pay as compensation‑Rs. 770, (c) Earned leave pay, if due, (d) Arrear pay, if any due, and (e) Pay for the period of suspension minus subsistence allowance, if paid. Second party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the petitioner within one month from today.