LAWS(KAR)-1981-8-13

V K PARAMESWARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 06, 1981
V.K.PARAMESWARAN Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two v/rit petitions the petitioners, who are ex-civilian clerks in the Defence service of the Union of India and who have been dismissed from service on the charge, of having caused the, filing of a few writ petitions by their colleagues in the Office, before this Court, questioning the legality of the promotion of a junior clerk, have prayed for quashing the orders made by the officer Incharge Records, Record Office, Madras Engineer Group, Bangalore, by which the petitioners were dismissed from service and the orders confirming the raid orders in appeal made by the Engineer-in-chief Army Head Quarters. New Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The two petitioners, V. K. Parameshwaran and A. Narayanan Nayar, were permanent Lower Division Clerks in the Record Office of the Madras Engineer Group, Bangalore. In the year 1975 one Miss Kanta Ruby, who was a Lower Division Clerk, and who was far junior to the two petitioners, was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk. Aggrieved by the promotion of their junior, the petitioners and several others filed W. Ps. 4051 and 4052 of 1975, 4663 to 4674 of 1975. During the pendency of those writ petitions, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the two petitioners. The contents of the Article of charge and the statement of allegation issued to both these petitioners are almost, similar. Therefore it is sufficient to set out the statement of article of charge and the allegation issued to V. K Parameshwaran. It reads: Confidential

(3.) Sri K. R. D. Karanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the act of the petitioners in presenting the writ petitions before this Court for the enforcement of their right guaranteed under Art. 16(1) oi the Constitution, jointly along with other persons, constituted no misconduct and it was highly improper on the part of the respondents to have intituted a disciplinary proceedings on the charge and imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. He submitted that the evidence adduced in the enquiry at the highest indicate that the petitioners took active part in filing the writ petitions and persuaded other officials to join them. This he submitted, by no stretch of imagination could be considered as misconduct justifying the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service.