H P SRINIVAS Vs. MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case seeks for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 9-6-1994 passed by the first respondent, who was the Disciplinary Authority and the endorsement bearing No. PER:35:enq:94-95:5405, dated 3-11-1994 issued by the second respondent, the Appellate Authority herein and further sought for issue of a writ of mandamus to declare the orders passed by the respondents as illegal and further sought for issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his post by granting the salary and consequential benefits, including the continuity of service, urging various legal contentions.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The first respondent is a 'government Company' (in short, 'the company) within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, it is an authority within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India, which is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and further Parts III and IV of the Constitution of India, are applicable to the officers and employees who are working in the said Company. The first respondent as a measure of disciplinary proceedings passed an order of suspension dated 17-6-1990 against the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that the Board of Directors of the Company on examination of the case in its meeting held on 18-6-1990 the investigation report submitted by its Company Secretary with regard to the various allegations that were made against the petitioner who was working as chief Administrative Officer in the Company, wherein certain alleged omissions and commissions have been made by him during the period from 1981-82 to 1989, with regard to appointment of certain persons in various posts in the Company. In the suspension order the reference is made with regard to 36 files relating to the alleged illegal-irregular appointments, were sent to him along with the notice under the signature of the then Chairman-cum-Managing director, asking him to submit his explanation. He had failed to submit the explanation, therefore the order of suspension was passed by the Company, keeping him under suspension pending enquiry. That was followed by issuance of Articles of charges dated 1-8-1990, making various allegations with regard to the omissions and commissions without list of documents and list of witnesses. It is pertinent to state at this stage that the alleged acts of misconduct was for the period 1981-82 till 1989 with regard to appointments of several persons, which have been done by the petitioner on the basis of notings of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company.

(3.) THE initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the year 1990, the Company has not explained the delay, which is an important aspect of the matter required to be considered by this Court. After receipt of the Memorandum of Articles of Charges, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation dated 8-8-1990 explaining the circumstances under which the allegations made against him for the Articles of Charges do not constitute an act of misconduct and he has not committed any act of misconduct and he has categorically explained that various relevant facts with regard to appointment of certain persons as daily rated or casual or temporary basis. Further, he has taken a definite stand in his explanation that on the basis of the orders passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Technical Director-Executive Director of the Company on the respective personal files of the respective candidates, orders have been issued by the said officers and by him on their advise and instructions. Those records pertaining to the candidates who are appointed during the said period as either casual or daily rated or temporary employees would conclusively prove the facts stated by him in his explanation.