M. SIDDAPPA S/O. A. MUNIYAPPA Vs. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, THE DIRECTOR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND SRI. M.A. SHAMA IYENGAR RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND INQUIRY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of penalty dated 09.07.1993 passed by the respondent dismissing the petitioner from service and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) PETITIONER joined the service of respondent in the year 1974 as Research Fellow. With effect from 16.01.1986 the petitioner was designated as Assistant Professor. The petitioner was an active trade union leader and in the year 1986 he was the elected Vice -President of the Indian Institute of Management Employees Association. On 10.07.1987 the respondents issued articles of charges alleging that on 18.07.1986 the petitioner and five others assaulted an employee, Sri. Padmanabhan Nair, and thus committed grave misconduct under Rule 11.3[i] - [iii] of India Institute of Management Service Rules (For short 'Rules'). The petitioner by big reply dated 03.08.1987 denied the charges leveled against him. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, initiated domestic enquiry proceedings. Before the Enquiry Officer the respondents examined five witnesses as M.W.I to M.W.S and got marked Ex. M.I to Ex.M.57. The petitioner examined 19 witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.19 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.95. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.04.1993 stating that the charger leveled against the petitioner and live others as proved. The Disciplinary Authority by accepting the enquiry report passed an order of penalty on 09.07.1993 dismissing the petitioner from service. Hence, this petition.

(3.) PER contra, Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned Counsel for the respondents contend, that the Board of Governors of respondents in its meeting held on 17.04.1990 ratified the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. He contends, that after 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution as specified in Article 311, the petitioner need not be provided an opportunity of being heard before passing the order of penalty. He contends, the acquittal of petitioner in criminal proceedings is not a bar to continue the departmental enquiry on the same charges. Some evidence is sufficient to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner being an Assistant Professor and Vice -president of employees association indulged in criminal acts of assault and the same is proved by the respondents by placing cogent evidence on record. He justifies the impugned order of penalty.