Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 1 G. L. Sagar v EDCIL (India) Ltd.

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.

13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the respondent before the learned Single Judge, EDCIL India Ltd., has approached this Court by means of the present appeal.

14. We have heard Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

15. Mr. Mishra contends that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the disagreement note pre-decided the guilt of the respondent and that, as the respondent had been provided an opportunity to respond against it, the observations in the disagreement note were only required to be treated as tentative.