P SOORIANARAYANAN Vs. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent company, which is a Government company. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on certain charges of misconduct. An enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted Ext.P7(a) report. That report was forwarded by the disciplinary authority, viz., the 2nd respondent, to the petitioner under cover of Ext.P7 show cause notice, wherein, the Managing Director, after finding that there is no extenuating circumstance to enter a finding other than that of the enquiry officer, directed the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of reduction in rank as Personal Secretary for a period of two years with cumulative effect, as per Clause 13(c) of the Staff Regulations, should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was forwarded to the Government for consideration and the Government returned the same to the company directing them to deal with the matter at the level of the Managing Director or at the level of the Board of Directors of the company. Thereafter, by Ext.P14, the Managing Director himself considered the appeal and rejected the same. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also.

(3.) Prima facie I find two glaring illegalities in the proceedings. After the enquiry officer submitted his report, the disciplinary authority is bound to give the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against the enquiry and the findings thereon. Here instead of doing that, the disciplinary authority, viz., the 2nd respondent, has straight away accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and directed the petitioner to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be imposed on him, which is clearly against the decisions of this Court and Supreme Court on the subject. Law requires that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file his representation against the enquiry itself and the findings of the enquiry officer, which has not been done in this case. Secondly, in an appeal there is no point in the original authority himself passing orders. Here the petitioner had filed an appeal, which has now been rejected by the disciplinary authority himself, which cannot be in compliance with the principles of natural justice. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the order of punishment and the appellate order are not in accordance with law. Accordingly, Exts.P9 and P14 orders are quashed. The petitioner shall be given and opportunity to file representation against the enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer and further proceedings shall be redone from that stage. For this purpose, Ext.P7 shall be considered as a show cause notice to show cause why the disciplinary authority should not accept the findings of the enquiry officer.