S K MALHOTRA Vs. ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition against the order of termination of his service pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.1.1992 pursuant to which enquiry was conducted by the respondent and order of termination was passed on 1.5.1992. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was also rejected on 29.9.1992. Mr.Venkatramani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset has contended that enquiry officer appointed by the respondents was an outsider and under the Rules of the respondents only an officer of the company could have been the enquiry officer. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case of Manjit Ahluwalia, V/s. UOI & ors. 1994(28) DRJ (DB) 114B. It was contended that procedure of holding enquiry as per the Rules were not followed and the admission, which was extracted from the petitioner was on the basis of certain promises made to the petitioner that a lenient view of the matter would be taken if he admits his guilt. It was contended before me that from the correspondence which the petitioner had with the respondents even prior to the issuance of charge sheet, if the same is taken into consideration, it would be borne out that the extraction of admission was involuntary. It was further contended that the punishment was disproportionate. It was further contended that charges levelled against the petitioner would come under the definition of misconduct as defined in the Rules. It was contended that on the basis of General Rules in the absence of any specific Rule, the respondents could not have terminated the service of the petitioner when neither any misappropriation nor any loss of property or loss in terms of finances was caused to the respondent. It was contended that reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 30.4.1992 was not at all considered by the disciplinary authority. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that termination coupled with forfeiture of services/financial benefits including gratuity was bad in law as the termination order further stated that the petitioner would not be entitled to any service/financial benefits including gratuity whatsoever. Lastly, it was contended that the order of appellate authority was also bad in law. It was contended that there was no reason given in the order of appellate authority and the appeal was rejected summarily without assigning any reason.

(3.) Mr.Venkatramani took pains in analysing the charges. According to learned counsel for the petitioner , the first charge was with regard to petitioners taking his family from Delhi to Bolangir on 20.5.1990 and claiming T.A. for his family by air from Delhi to Raipur. The charge was that although in the T.A. bill the names of the family members were mentioned but they had not travelled by air from Delhi to Raipur and petitioner had claimed false T.A. for his family members. On the basis of aforesaid charge, it was contended before me that there was no finding as to whether the petitioner did travel from Delhi to Raipur along with his family on 20.5.190. It was also canvassed before me that there is no finding of fact as to whether family members of the petitioner travelled from Delhi to Raipur by air and in case the petitioner had presented the T.A. bill, the same could not have been passed by the authorities. Lastly, it was contended that in any case the difference between the air fare and Railway fare had already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent and no loss had been caused to the respondent on this score.