D ANANDAKUMAR Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a workman, working with I st respondent, is before this Court, inter alia questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by 2nd respondent in No. MAA:CM: ADMN: 7607 dated July 12115, 1986, reducing two increments with cumulative effect from i August 1, 1986 in respect of charge memo dated s May 4,1984.

(2.) WHILE working with Ist respondent, a 10 'memo of allegation' and a charge memo was served on the petitioner alleging certain irreguirities which would come within the meaning of the expression 'Misconduet'.By his reply, petitioner had denied the allegations 15 made in 'Memo of allegations' and the 'charge memo'. A detailed enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer as prescribed in the standing orders. Report alongwith his findings had been submitted to the disciplinary authority by Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority after reappreciation of entire evidence on record and after a thorough reassessment of the enquiry report and findings therein, proceeded to pass the impugned order imposing penalty as indicated 25 earlier. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner without even availing the statutory appeal provided under the Standing Orders, is before this.Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

(3.) THESE are the only grounds urged at the time of hearing of the writ petition and on these grounds, learned counsel would submit that the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and require to be set aside by this Court.