J P SINHA Vs. INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts leading to this writ petition are :

(2.) THE respondent has filed the statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable in law or on facts and as such it is liable to be dismissed. The respondent denied that the petitioner served the company honestly and sincerely. The respondent has also denied all the material allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated that in W.P. No. 21294 of 1981 the order of dismissal passed on the earlier occasion was set aside subject to de novo enquiry being held under several conditions set out in the said order. With regard to the grounds raised in the writ petition, the respondent has stated thus in paras 23 and 24 of the statement of objections :

(3.) SHRI Udaya Holla, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner did not make any statement before the Enquiry Officer and he did not give any explanation when opportunity was given and even he did not enter the witness box. His further submission was that the procedure contemplated in Rule 26 of the Rules was followed and action was taken under rule 27 of the Rules by the competent authority. Thus, the competent authority has passed the impugned order, Annex. B. Learned counsel contended that under rule 27(2), the competent authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Authority recording its own reasons on the evidence on record. Thereafter, an order imposing penalty of dismissal was passed under rule 27(3).