NATIONAL FERTILIZER LIMITED Vs. B S RAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, National Fertilizer Limited, by this intra-court appeal assails the judgment dated 17th October, 2008 allowing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13672/2006 which was filed by the respondent herein, Mr. B.S. Rahi. By the impugned judgment, it was, inter alia, held that the Board of Directors of the appellant had, vide order dated 7th July, 2006, erred in accepting the resignation letter dated 9th September, 2003 with effect from 25th November, 2003. THE appellant has been directed to reinstate the respondent and pay back-wages with effect from 25th November, 2003 till the date of his retirement on 31st December, 2005.

(2.) THE respondent had joined Fertilizer Corporation of India on 5th June, 1972 and upon bifurcation became an employee of the appellant with effect from 1st April, 1978. He worked up, on various posts and on 1st June, 1996 he was promoted as Manager (Material) and was posted at Bhatinda. On 6th September, 1996, after preliminary enquiry, the respondent was suspended in a 'Jute Bag case' along with some other officers. On 13th December, 1996, the suspension of the respondent was revoked. Central Bureau of Investigation investigated the said case and by their letter dated 24th April, 1999 recommended initiation of departmental proceedings.

(3.) IN 2003, on scrutiny of the property/assets return files of the respondent, lapses were noticed in submitting the requisite details regarding immovable properties. By memorandum dated 28th March, 2003, the respondent was asked to furnish clarification on the points mentioned in the memorandum. The respondent had submitted a reply dated 5th May, 2003 but the same was found to be unsatisfactory and by another memorandum dated 28th May, 2003, the respondent was advised to submit required information with regard to his immovable properties by filing Form F. The respondent replied by letter dated 24th June, 2003, which was again found to be unsatisfactory by the appellant. However, further proceedings were kept in abeyance as the respondent was dismissed from service pursuant to departmental proceedings mentioned hereinafter. It may, however, be relevant to reproduce below, a portion of memorandum dated 28th May, 2003 :-