T VENKATESH Vs. MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the two petitioners were officers of the respondent-1 company and it is alleged that pursuant to an accident that took place at gujarath on 22-4-1985 that they were deputed there in connection with a certain inspection with a direction that they were to submit a report. Briefly stated, it is alleged that subsequent to this, it was necessary for the respondent- company to take certain corrective action and that the conduct of the petitioners in the course of these subsequent developments is alleged to have given rise to certain disciplinary proceedings. In sum and substance, what is alleged against the petitioners is that while the question of placing orders for certain spare parts were concerned, that they had done so in a manner that was extremely prejudicial to the interest of the company. It was therefore concluded by the company that the petitioners have betrayed a total lack of integrity, that they have been guilty of serious disloyalty against the company and that consequently, they had opened themselves for disciplinary action. What proceeded thereafter may be summarised insofar as charge-sheets were issued to both the petitioners and an enquiry proceeding was instituted. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the two petitioners were held guilty of acts of serious misconduct and the disciplinary authority who is the managing director of company thereafter considered the entire material placed before him and recorded a finding that the two petitioners were liable to be dismissed from service. The petitioners thereafter filed appeals to the board of directors and the board rejected their appeals. It is against this last order that the petitioners have filed the present petitions. Essentially, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the appellate order dated 11th september 1986 which in the case of the two petitioners is set-out at annexures-r.1 and r.2 to the petition.

(2.) Mr. U.l. narayan rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioners has argued at considerable length and had initially contended that the charges themselves were groundless. He has attacked the charge-sheet on the ground of vagueness and he has also assailed the evidence that was led in the course of the enquiry. Learned counsel has also found fault with the procedure adopted and contended that it is vulnerable to challenge. He has thereafter submitted that the punishment was too harsh because according to him, the charges themselves have not been established and lastly, he contended that the appellate authority who ought to have carefully examined All the contentions that had been put forward, has disposed of the appeal through a short order which does not disclose any independent reasons whatsoever. Cumulatively therefore, what is submitted is that the orders dated llth september, 1986 which have culminated in the removal of the petitioners from service ought to be quashed. As a necessary consequence, the petitioners have prayed for an order of reinstatement with whatever other reliefs, such an order is passed.

(3.) on the other hand, Mr. Udaya holla has sought to stoutly defend the ultimate order of dismissal because he submits that the petitioners were responsible officers of the company and that the essence of loyalty and integrity which are the fundamental requisites for their retention in service were totally absent as far as the conduct of the two petitioners were concerned. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the instances on the basis of which the petitioners have been chargesheeted cannot be lightly dismissed insofar as it clearly shows that while they were officers of the company their interest lay elsewhere and that this has been more than fully and adequately demonstrated. He therefore submitted that the action on the part of the company was fully justified and he has referred to various parts of the record in support of his contention that the procedure adopted was unassailable. He thereafter proceeds to submit that if the misconduct was serious and if it is fully established, then the punishment of dismissal was perfectly justified. Mr. Holla has relied very heavily on the order of the disciplinary authority in this case. He submits that this order has embarked on a complete and careful examination of the entire record and have given very cogent reasons for the extreme penalty being imposed. According to the learned counsel, when the board, which is the appellate authority, was faced with this back ground and with the record of this type, All that is required on the part of the board was to review the record in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioners in the appeal and if the disciplinary authority's order was still unassailable, to uphold the same. Mr. Holla defends the appellate order principally on the ground that according to him, the duty of the appellate authority is virtually one of review or reconsideration because the entire case has been concluded at an earlier point of time. In an instance where different view is liable to be taken, according to the learned counsel, it would be necessary to set out elaborate reasons but he submits that where the appellate authority concurs with the disciplinary authority, no elaborate reasons are required to be set out particularly in a case where the original grounds for the punishment and the original reasoning can be fully defended. Therefore, he submits that as long as the appellate authority has set out in its order that there has been due application of mind and that the case has been carefully considered in All relevant aspects, that no interference is warranted from this court.