Dismissal Invalid For Non Consideration Of Reply | HC

Case Details: Sarwar Hussain vs. Managing Director U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 283 (HC - Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Abdul Moin, J
• Manish Jauhari, Mohit Jauhari, K.C. Jauhari, Subodh Kumar Verma, U.P. Mishra & V.P. Mishra for the Petitioner.
• Mohd.Mansoor Ahmad and Shishir Jain for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner was working as a storekeeper in the respondent corporation. An amount was withdrawn from the corporation’s savings bank account maintained with the bank. In a preliminary enquiry, it emerged that the petitioner had stolen a cheque and thereafter had made signatures of two officers on the said cheque and upon the said cheque being presented before the bank, the amount was withdrawn.
The Respondent-corporation was of the view that the preliminary enquiry report should be utilised against the petitioner. The Disciplinary authority, relying on the preliminary enquiry report, passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner.
The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, pointing out incongruities in the inquiry report and the inquiry process. Still, the disciplinary authority, although indicating that the petitioner had submitted a reply, failed to consider the same and passed a dismissal order.
It was noted that when a reply has been submitted, the concerned authority is required to apply its mind to it. Further, since disciplinary authority had not considered grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply while passing the dismissal order, the impugned order of dismissal was legally invalid and merited to be quashed.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that since petitioner was only one part of entire episode which started with an unauthorized saving bank account being opened by an officer and which culminated with fraudulent withdrawal of money, there clearly had been discrimination in punishment meted out to individuals, who were involved in entire episode with two individuals being punished with withholding of one increment permanently and a penalty of censure. At the same time, no action had been taken against another officer.
The High Court held that, since the petitioner had died during the pendency of the instant petition, the punishment of withholding one increment permanently and one censure would be imposed on the petitioner, with effect from the date of the dismissal order.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Raj Kumar Mehrotra v. State of Bihar (2005) 12 SCC 256 (para 36)
• Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India (2010) 13 SCC 427 (para 37)
• B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union Of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 (para 40) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Mohd Yunus Khan v. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd [Writ Petition No. 6544 (SS) of 2000, dated 4-9-2012] (para 14)
• Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh (2013) 12 SCC 372 (para 15),
• Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2013] 2 taxmann.com 1338 (SC) (para 15)
• Raj Kumar Mehrotra v. State of Bihar (2005) 12 SCC 256 (para 36)
• Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India (2010) 13 SCC 427 (para 37)
• B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union Of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 (para 40).