V K GARG Vs. GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal by passing a common judgment and order, as counsels for the parties have stated that the facts of both the cases are same and issues involved are also common. For the sake of convenience, facts of WP(C) No.998/1991 are taken note of.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 22nd March, 1991 passed by the respondents, imposing penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. He has also sought a declaration to the effect that the order passed by the Appellate Authority upon reviewing its earlier decision dated 3.10.1989, in the absence of any such provision for review, is illegal and thus the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case, as culled out from the record is that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Manager (Technical) in respondent No.2/Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the DSIDC') on 1st September, 1976. In November 1980, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Manager. During the year 1983-84, the petitioner along with three others, including Mr.Ravinder Kaushal [petitioner in WP(C) No.1432/1991] faced a departmental enquiry . On 14th October, 1983, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner, while working as an Assistant Manager with the DSIDC, during November 1980, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as he made a wrong and false assessment of a requirement of 40 MT of CRC sheets per month on 10th November, 1980 for manufacture of pen caps in favour of M/s Golden Aluminium and Plastic Industries (a company owned by the daughter of the then General Manager of DSIDC, one Mr.T.R.Kalia against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated separately), when the application of the unit did not ever indicate that pen caps are to be manufactured from CRC and knowing that CRC sheet of 14 to 20G is so thick that it cannot be used for the purpose of manufacturing the said pen caps, which resulted in allocation of 13MT of CRC sheets to the unit during the period 29th November, 1980 to 21st January, 1981, which the unit was otherwise not entitled to receive from DSIDC. Thus the petitioner was charged with contravention of Rule 44 (iv), (viii) of DSIDC Ltd.(Staff Service) Rule, 1978.