OM PRAKASH Vs. R A ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the institution of the enquiry the petitioner by order dated 6/12/1995, passed by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks.

(2.) The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks appeared before this court in J.C.M.(m) 521/95 and C.M. 2016/95 and gave an assurance to this court that he would cause an enquiry into the specific incident alleged in the said case relating to the order dated 29/6/1995, which was signed by Mr. Om Prakash, the respondent no.3 herein. In pursuance of the aforesaid assurance given to this court, the controller general of patents, designs and trade marks by an order dated 6/12/1995, directed for holding an enquiry on the specific incident stated above and appointed Shri B.P. Mishra, Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Patents Officer Branch, New Delhi as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the specific incident alleged in the case. Subsequently, by another office order dated 28.11.1995, the controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks directed the respondent no.3 not to exercise any function of the registrar under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 until further orders. The deputy controller of patents and Designs having been so appointed as the enquiry officer issued an office memo dated 28.12.1995 requesting the respondent no. 3 to appear before him on 3.1.1996 to make his submissions. In the said notice it also brought to the notice of the respondent no. 3 that on the earlier occasion he did not appear before him and in case the respondent no. 3 fails to appear on 3.1.1996, it would be presumed that he did not intend to make any submission and thereon enquiry proceeding would be concluded accordingly without his statement.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders passed by the concerned respondents, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, although the aforesaid enquiry is to be a fact finding enquiry, but for all intent and purpose, the said enquiry is a departmental enquiry. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Shri B.P. Mishra, Deputy controller of patents and Designs who has been appointed as an enquiry officer is a subordinate officer in rank that of the petitioner and , therefore, his appointment as Enquiry officer is liable to be set aside. In support of her submission, she relied upon the contents of office memorandum dated 16.1.1971, a copy of which is enclosed in the petitioner.