UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. KARUNAKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are against the common judgment in O.P. Nos. 1899 of 1980 and 3414 of 1981. Writ Appeal No. 658 of 1983 has been filed by the Union of India and the Chairman. Coffee Board, who were respondents in OP. 1899 of 1980 while Writ Appeal No. 659 of 1983 has been filed by the Chairman, Coffee Board and the Deputy Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Division, Coffee Board, who were respondents in OP. No. 3414 of 1981. The sole respondent in these writ appeals is none other than the petitioner in the above original petitions. The challenge is against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing OP. No. 1899 of 1580 and disposing of OP. No. 3414 of 1981 on the ground that the questions raised in that original petition will not arise for consideration in view of the fact that OP. No. 1899 of 1980 was allowed. The short facts are: The petitioner in the original petition (the respondent in the writ appeals) was a junior clerk of the Coffee Board from 1963 onwards, In 1969 he was promoted as Assistant Coffee Inspector and allotted to the field cadre'. In 1977 disciplinary action was initiated, against him for bribery. He was reverted as junior clerk for a period of two years and that was the penalty imposed in the disciplinary proceedings. He appealed against that penalty, but that appeal was rejected. In OP. No. 1899 of 1980 the challenge was against Ext. P-2 order imposing the penalty on the petitioner and Ext. P-3 order rejecting his appeal.

(2.) After the two years period of reversion as junior clerk, the petitioner made a request for being posted as Assistant Coffee Inspector in the field, but the Board took a decision that be was unsuited for field work and that he could only be accommodated in the ministerial line. It was this decision that was challenged in. OP. No. 3414 of 1981.

(3.) The main contention on behalf of the petitioner in OP. No. 1899 of 1980 was that in view of the fact that an Inspector of the C.B.I. was nominated as Presenting Officer, the petitioner's request for permission to be assisted by a legal practitioner ought to have been allowed and, by the rejection of the same, the petitioner did not get a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, which resulted in the absence of fair procedure in the enquiry.