{"id":269403,"date":"2005-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005"},"modified":"2018-11-10T03:36:24","modified_gmt":"2018-11-09T22:06:24","slug":"u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1346 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nU.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR.S. PANDEY AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the `employer’) calls in question
\nlegality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
\nCourt dismissing Special Appeal filed by the appellant. The Special Appeal
\nwas filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the judgment rendered
\nby a learned Single Judge who had questioned the orders of termination in
\nrespect of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
The main stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the writ
\npetition filed by the respondents should not be entertained as they had
\nefficacious, alternative and statutory remedy provided under the Industrial
\nDisputes Act<\/a>, 1947 (in short the `Act’) read with U.P. Industrial Disputes
\nAct, 1947 (in short the `U.P Act<\/a>‘).\n<\/p>\n
The background facts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
The respondents while working in the appellant’s concern made claims of 15%
\nof the basic pay as an interim relief as was being paid to the officers and
\nclerical staff at the Headquarters of the appellant’s concern, as according
\nto them there was no justifiable reason for refusing the said relief to the
\nstaff at some units. The writ petition was filed (including amended
\nprayers), inter alia, with the following prayers:\n<\/p>\n
(a) to issue a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from
\ntransferring, terminating the services of the petitioners and harassing and
\ncausing any harm to petitioners;\n<\/p>\n
(b) to issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay
\n15% of the basic pay as interim relief and fixed D.A. of Rs. 100 to the
\nclerical staff of the Maunath Bhanjan Unit Mills;\n<\/p>\n
(c) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble
\nCourt may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and<\/p>\n
(d) to award costs of this writ petition to the petitioners against the
\ncontesting respondents.\n<\/p>\n
It is to be noted that five applications for amendments were filed and some
\nof them were allowed by the High Court. Right from the beginning, the
\nappellant was questioning maintainability of the writ petition as according
\nto it statutory remedies were available and in the writ petition itself the
\nwrit petitioners accepted that the standing orders governing the service
\nconditions were in operation. By one of the amendments, the order of
\ndismissal passed was permitted to be questioned. So far as the respondent
\nNo.1 is concerned, the stand was that the notice of show cause was alleged
\nto have been refused by him when sent by the appellant on 21.11.1987. The
\nsame show cause notice was sent on 23.11.1987 by registered post which was
\nreceived by the respondent No.1 on 26.11.1987. The writ petitioner
\n(respondent No. 1) sent his reply to the show cause notice dated 26.11.1987
\nwhich was received by the appellant on 2.12.1987. But the order of
\ndismissal was passed on 1.12.1987. Learned Single Judge rejected the plea
\nrelating to existence of alternative remedy and only on the ground that the
\nfinal order was passed before the receipt of the show cause reply, quashed
\nthe proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the respondent No.2 is concerned, it was held that the notice was
\ngiven by publishing in the news item on the purported ground that he did
\nnot join the transferred post. The High Court held that the show cause
\nnotice containing the allegation of non-joining was not established to have
\nbeen served.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Single Judge noted that the writ petition was pending for great
\nlength of time and, therefore, it would not be legal and proper to dismiss
\nthe writ petition. He did not find substance in the plea that had the writ
\npetitioners availed a statutory remedy under the Act and the U.P. Act<\/a>, the
\nemployer would have got the opportunity to show that the departmental
\nproceedings were fair by adducing evidence in terms of Section 11-A<\/a> of the
\nAct. By filing writ petition according to the appellant, such a statutory
\nright was rendered ineffective.\n<\/p>\n
In the Special Appeal filed before the Division Bench, the stands taken
\nwere re-iterated. It was specifically pointed out that the long pendency of
\nthe writ petition was primarily on account of the fact that several
\namendments were sought for and prayers for new reliefs were introduced. It
\nwas further submitted that even if the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour
\nCourt comes to the conclusion that domestic enquiry is vitiated, the
\nemployer has a statutory right to lead evidence to show that the order of
\ntermination is justified on the materials which may be placed on record.
\nThis right was being denied by the workmen approaching the High Court under
\nArticle 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the
\n`Constitution’). The High Court did not consider the plea relating to the
\nexistence of alternative remedy and denial of opportunity to justify the
\norder of termination by leading evidence to be of any consequence and held
\nthat the learned Single Judge had permitted the appellant-employer to
\nproceed further in accordance with law. Since the order of termination was
\npassed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in hasty
\nmanner the writ petition was maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
In support of the appeal, Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel submitted
\nthat the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. No reason was
\nindicated by the writ petitioners for by-passing the statutory remedies.
\nEven in the writ petition, nothing was said to justify by-passing the
\nstatutory remedy. In fact it was clearly stated that the standing orders
\ngoverning the service conditions were in operation. The High Court should
\nnot have considered the passage of time as a factor to justify the action
\nof the writ petitioners in straightway filing the writ petition. As noted
\nabove, the long pendency was on account of the various amendments sought
\nfor by the writ petitioners. They should not have been permitted to take
\nadvantage of their own dilutory methods. It was however accepted that the
\nappeal is not pressed so far as respondent No.2 is concerned as he had died
\nduring the pendency of the appeal and the appellant has settled the matter
\nwith the legal heirs of said deceased respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
In response, learned counsel for respondent No.1-workman submitted that
\nexistence of statutory remedy is not a rule of law but a law of caution and
\nin appropriate cases the High Court can entertain writ petitions. This was
\na case where there was gross violation of principles of natural justice
\nand, therefore, the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ
\npetition and deciding the matter on merits. Merely because the employer had
\na right to justify the order of dismissal by adducing evidence, that cannot
\nbe a ground to deny the affected party the right to approach the High Court
\nby filing a writ petition. In fact the employer has been permitted to take
\nsuch action as is available in law by the orders of learned Single Judge
\nand the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
The issues relating to entertaining writ petitions when alternative remedy
\nis available, were examined by this Court in several cases and recently in
\nState of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. M\/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and
\nAnr<\/a>., [2005] 6 SCC 499.\n<\/p>\n
Except for a period when Article 226<\/a> was amended by the Constitution (42nd
\nAmendment) Act<\/a>, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been
\nconsidered to be a rule of self imposed limitation. It is essentially a
\nrule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite
\nthe existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of
\ndiscretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226<\/a> of the
\nConstitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the
\nmatter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the
\njurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if
\nthere is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches
\nthe High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High
\nCourt should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist
\ngood grounds to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax
\nInvestigation Commission<\/a> and Ors., AIR (1954) SC 207; Sangram Singh v.
\nElection Tribunal, Kotah and Ors<\/a>., AIR (1955) SC 425; Union of India v.
\nT.R. Varma<\/a>, AIR (1957) SC 882; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mohammad Nooh<\/a>, AIR
\n(1958) SC 86 and M\/s K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras<\/a>,
\nAIR (1966) SC 1089, held that Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution confers on
\nall the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs.
\nHowever, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the
\nHigh Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is
\nsatisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief
\nelsewhere. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the
\npower if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of
\nprinciples of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not
\nbeen adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Another Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and
\nAnr. v. Bhailal Bhai<\/a> etc. etc., AIR (1964) SC 1006 held that the remedy
\nprovided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the
\nmodes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence
\nlegitimately open in such actions. The power to give relief under Article
\n226<\/a> of the Constitution is a discretionary power. Similar view has been re-
\niterated in N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar and Ors<\/a>., AIR (1959) SC
\n422; Municipal Council, Khurai and Anr. v. Kamal Kumar and Anr<\/a>., AIR (1965)
\nSC 1321; Siliguri Municipality and Ors. v. Amalendu Das and Ors<\/a>., AIR
\n(1984) SC 653; S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan and Ors<\/a>., AIR (1988) SC 616;
\nR.S.R.T.C. and Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Ors<\/a>., AIR (1995) SC 1715; Kerala
\nState Electricity Board and Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil and Ors<\/a>., AIR (2000)
\nSC 2573; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and Ors<\/a>., [2000] 7 SCC
\n695; and L.L. Sudhakar Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors<\/a>.,
\n[2001] 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj)
\nSahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors<\/a>.,
\n[2001] 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana, [2002] 7 SCC
\n484 and G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors<\/a>.,
\n[2003] 1 SCC 72.\n<\/p>\n
In Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd<\/a>., [2003] 2 SCC 107,
\nthis Court held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by
\navailability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of
\ncompulsion and the Court must consider the pros and cons of the case and
\nthen may interfere if it comes to the conclusion that the petitioner seeks
\nenforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of
\nprinciples of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly
\nwithout jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.\n<\/p>\n
In G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd<\/a>., AIR (1952) SC 192; Assistant
\nCollector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd<\/a>., AIR (1985) SC 330;
\nRamendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura<\/a>, AIR (1999) SC 294; Shivgonda
\nAnna Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors<\/a>., AIR (1999) SC 2281;
\nC.A. Abraham v. I.T.O. Kottayam and Ors<\/a>., AIR (1961) SC 609; Titaghur Paper
\nMills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Anr<\/a>., AIR (1983) SC 603; H.B. Gandhi
\nv. M\/s Gopinath and Sons, [1992] Suppl. 2 SCC 312; Whirlpool Corporation v.
\nRegistrar of Trade Marks and Ors<\/a>., AIR (1999) SC 22; Tin Plate Co. of India
\nLtd. v. State of Bihar<\/a> and Ors., AIR (1999) SC 74; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal
\nSingh<\/a>, [1999] 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors<\/a>.,
\n[2001] 6 SCC 569, this Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is
\nprovided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before
\nresorting to writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
If, as was noted in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and Ors<\/a>., AIR
\n(1985) SC 1147 the appeal is from “Caeser to Caeser’s wife” the existence
\nof alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the
\ninstant case the writ petitioners had indicated the reasons as to why they
\nthought that the alternative remedy would not be efficacious. Though the
\nHigh Court did not go into that plea relating to bias in detail, yet it
\nfelt that alternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain the writ
\npetition. Since the High Court has elaborately dealt with the question as
\nto why the statutory remedy available was not efficacious, it would not be
\nproper for this Court to consider the question again. When the High Court
\nhad entertained a writ petition notwithstanding existence of an alternative
\nremedy this Court while dealing with the matter in an appeal should not
\npermit the question to be raised unless the High Court’s reasoning for
\nentertaining the writ petition is found to be palpably unsound and
\nirrational. Similar view was expressed by this Court in First Income-Tax
\nOfficer, Salem v. M\/s. Short Brothers (P) Ltd<\/a>., [1966] 3 SCR 84 and State
\nof U.P. and Ors. v. M\/s. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd<\/a>., [1977] 2 SCC 724. That
\nbeing the position, we do not consider the High Court’s judgment to be
\nvulnerable on the ground that alternative remedy was not availed. There are
\ntwo well recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory
\nremedies. First is when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a
\nprovision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved
\nthereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground
\nthat they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those
\nproceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no
\napplication when the impugned order has been made in violation of the
\nprinciples of natural justice. We may add that where the proceedings itself
\nare an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can
\nentertain a writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental
\nrights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to
\nhave assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the grounds on
\nwhich the writ petitions can be entertained. But normally, the High Court
\nshould not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is
\nsomething more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction
\nof the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of
\npalpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the
\nremedies provided by the statute. It was noted by this Court in L. Hirday
\nNarain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly<\/a> AIR (1971) SC 33 that if the High
\nCourt had entertained a petition despite availability of alternative remedy
\nand heard the parties on merits it would be ordinarily unjustifiable for
\nthe High Court to dismiss the same on the ground of non exhaustion of
\nstatutory remedies; unless the High Court finds that factual disputes are
\ninvolved and it would not be desirable to deal with them in a writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take note of the few
\nexpressions in Reg v. Hillington, London Borough Council, (1974) 1 QB 720
\nwhich seems to bring out well the position. Lord Widgery, C.J. stated in
\nthis case:\n<\/p>\n
“It has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is
\nno other equally effective and convenient remedy…”\n<\/p>\n
The statutory system of appeals is more effective and more convenient than
\napplication for certiorari and the principal reason why it may prove itself
\nmore convenient and more effective is that an appeal to (say) the Secretary
\nof State can be disposed of at one hearing whether the issue between them
\nis a matter of law or fact or policy or opinion or a combination of some or
\nall of these ……..whereas of course an appeal for certiorari is limited
\nto cases where the issue is a matter of law and then only it is a matter of
\nlaw appearing on the face of the order.”\n<\/p>\n
“An application for certiorari has however this advantage that it is
\nspeedier and cheaper than the other methods and in a proper case therefore
\nit may well be right to allow it to be used…..I would, however, define a
\nproper case as being one where the decision in question is liable to be
\nupset as a matter of law because on its face it is clearly made without
\njurisdiction or in consequence of an error of law.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter all the above discussion, the following observations of
\n\tRoskill L.J. in Hanson v. Church Commissioner, (1978) QB 823 may
\n\tnot be welcomed but it should not be forgotten also:\n<\/p>\n
\t“There are a number of shoals and very little safe water in the
\n\tunchartered seas which divide the line between prerogative orders
\n\tand statutory appeals, and I do not propose to plunge into those
\n\tseas….”\n<\/p>\n
In a catena of decisions it has been held that writ petition under Article
\n226<\/a> of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy
\nis available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out.\n<\/p>\n
In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.
\nKaramchari Sangh<\/a>, [2004] 4 SCC 268, it was held that when the dispute
\nrelates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and
\nspecific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court
\nshould not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226<\/a>
\nexcept when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The
\nperson who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided
\nunder the statute. To same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles
\nLtd. v. Kamlekar Shantarum Wadke<\/a>, [1976] 1 SCC 496, Rajasthan SRTC v.
\nKrishna Kant<\/a>, [1995] 5 SCC 75, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Muncipal
\nCorporation of Ahmedabad and Anr<\/a>., [2002] 2 SCC 542 and in Scooters India
\nand Ors. v. Vijai V. Eldred<\/a>, [1998] 6 SCC 549.\n<\/p>\n
In Premier Automobiles Ltd., case (Supra) it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“A speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution of disputes
\narising between workmen and their employers. The idea has been to ensure
\nthat the workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of civil courts with
\ntheir layers upon layers of appeals and revisions and the elaborate
\nprocedural laws, which the workmen can ill afford. The procedure followed
\nby civil courts, it was thought, would not facilitate a prompt and
\neffective disposal of these disputes. As against this, the courts and
\ntribunals created by the Industrial Disputes Act<\/a> are not shackled by these
\nprocedural laws nor is their award subject to any appeals or revisions.
\nBecause of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can
\nthemselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to
\ngrant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even
\nsubstitute the punishment in many cases. They can make and re-make the
\ncontracts, settlement, wage structures and what not. Their awards are no
\ndoubt amenable to jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226<\/a> as also
\nto the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32<\/a>, but they are
\nextraordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is,
\ntherefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning
\nthem are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a civil
\ncourt. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments
\nconcerning workmen. This legislative policy and intendment should
\nnecessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these enactments and the
\ndisputes arising under them”.\n<\/p>\n
In Basant Kumar Sarkar and Ors. v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. and Ors<\/a>.,
\n[1964] 6 SCR 913 the Constitution Bench of this Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“It is true that the powers conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226<\/a> are
\nvery wide, but it is not suggested by Mr. Chatterjee that even these powers
\ncan take in within their sweep industrial disputes of the kind which this
\ncontention seeks to raise. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
\nmerits of the contention, we would confirm the finding of the High Court
\nthat the proper remedy which is available to the appellants to ventilate
\ntheir grievances in respect of the said notices and circulars is to take
\nrecourse to s. 10<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act, or seek relief, if
\npossible, under sections 74<\/a> and 75<\/a> of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
The above position was recently highlighted in Hindustan Steel Works
\nConstruction Ltd. and Anr. v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.
\nEmployees Union<\/a>, (2005) 6 SCALE 430.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the conclusion is inevitable that the High Court was not
\njustified in entertaining the writ petition. Usually when writ petition is
\nentertained notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy and issues
\nare decided on merits, this Court is slow to interfere merely on the ground
\nof availability of alternative remedy. But the facts of the present case
\nhave special features, which warrant interference.\n<\/p>\n
The residual question is what would the appropriate direction in such a
\ncase. Stand of the employer is that it could have justified the order of
\ntermination by adducing any evidence even if it was held that there was
\nsome defect in the departmental proceedings. The solution is found in what
\nwas stated by this Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar<\/a>, [1993]
\n4 SCC 737. In paragraph 31, it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In all cases where the enquiry officer’s report is not furnished
\n\tto the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the
\n\tCourts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be
\n\tfurnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured
\n\tit before coming to the Court\/Tribunal and give the employee an
\n\topportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of
\n\tnon-supply of the report. If the non-supply of the report would
\n\thave made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment
\n\tgiven, the Court\/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of
\n\tpunishment. The Court\/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside
\n\tthe order of punishment on the ground that the report was not
\n\tfurnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts
\n\tshould avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the
\n\tCourts\/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the
\n\tquestion and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting
\n\taside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or
\n\trevisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the
\n\tprinciples of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable
\n\topportunity. It is only if the Court\/Tribunal finds that the
\n\tfurnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result
\n\tin the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. Where
\n\tafter following the above procedure, the Court\/Tribunal sets aside
\n\tthe order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted
\n\tis to direct re-instatement of the employee with liberty to the
\n\tauthority\/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the
\n\temployee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage
\n\tof furnishing him with the report. The question whether the
\n\temployee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits
\n\tfrom the date of his dismissal to the date of his re-instatement if
\n\tultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the
\n\tauthority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the
\n\tproceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee
\n\tsucceeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be re-instated,
\n\tthe authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how
\n\tit will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the re-
\n\tinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the
\n\tbenefits, he will be entitled. The re-instatement made as a result
\n\tof the setting aside the inquiry for failure to furnish the report,
\n\tshould be treated as a re-instatement for the purpose of holding
\n\tthe fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no
\n\tmore, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the
\n\tcorrect position in law.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of above, we set aside the order of learned Single Judge as
\naffirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and direct that
\nwithin a period of four months the enquiry shall be completed by starting
\nfrom the stage of service of show cause notice and consideration of the
\nreply, if any, filed in accordance with the standing orders holding the
\nfield. The respondent No. 1 shall be re-instated to service but without any
\nback wages and other service benefits and his re-instatement shall be
\nsolely for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings. His
\nentitlements, if any, would be adjudicated by the authorities depending
\nupon the result of the disciplinary proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1346 of 2005 PETITIONER: U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. RESPONDENT: R.S. PANDEY AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2005 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nU.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-09T22:06:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T22:06:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4163,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005\",\"name\":\"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T22:06:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-09T22:06:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T22:06:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005"},"wordCount":4163,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005","name":"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T22:06:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-spinning-co-ltd-vs-r-s-pandey-and-anr-on-26-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=269403"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269403\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}