C RAGHUNATHAN Vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the service as an Engineer in the establishment of the respondent M/s.Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and later promoted as Deputy Manager (Shops), Foundry and Forge Division. He was granted 1 years of study leave with pay by the management to complete his Ph.D. Course in Indian Institute of Science. He was also paid salary during the course of his studies. On 16.12.2003, a charge sheet was issued to him and he was kept under suspension.

(2.) It is clear from the enquiry report that at the conclusion, the Enquiry Officer is dependant for everything on the evidence of PW-1. Though PW-1 has not deposed anything, but the report reveals as if he had adduced material evidence. The Enquiry Officer has failed in evaluating the evidence and also documents and he has reached conclusion in the form of answering each issue. Under these circumstances, the Enquiry Officer has committed an error, which is arbitrary in nature in not holding the enquiry in a fair and proper manner and the report is without any cogent evidence. On these grounds, the punishment vitiates.

(3.) In view of the charges levelled against the petitioner, a domestic enquiry has been held, which is made on the basis of the complaint made by V.Senthil Kumar to the C.B.I. After investigation, the C.B.I. filed charge sheet on the basis of the complaint and domestic enquiry has been initiated. Charges in the domestic enquiry and the charges in the criminal case are one and the same; the list of documents and the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer and before the Sessions Court are one and the same. Under these circumstances, a request was made to withhold domestic enquiry till the completion of the criminal case, but said request has been rejected. Instead of waiting till the trial is completed by the C.B.I. Court, domestic enquiry was completed and report was submitted hurriedly resulting in dismissing the petitioner from service, which is arbitrary in nature.