M RAMA WARRIER Vs. COIR BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. P. No. 104 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, is the appellant.

(2.) THE suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 40,000 as damages alleging that the appellant was wrongfully dismissed by the defendant. The appellant was a class IV employee of the defendant, Coir Board, Ernakulam. He was dismissed from service as per order dated 13th April, 1972. The disciplinary proceedings which culminated in his dismissal were taken against him alleging that he contacted M/s. Liberty Sales Agencies, Bangalore, who wanted to purchase coir carpets from the defendant's show room and sales depot in Bangalore and told them that the price of new carpets had gone up considerably and that four pieces of carpets they possessed could very well be repaired and dyed and they could save unnecessary expenses and that for such repair and redyeing, an amount of Rs. 100 was fixed by the appellant and an amount of Rs. 60 was received by him as advance. The Coir Board issued a show-cause notice directing the appellant to explain his conduct. The appellant submitted his explanation and finding that it was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted by the show-room manager of the Coir Board and the appellant was found guilty of having violated bye-laws 3, 9 and 15 of the Coir Board Employees' (Conduct) Bye-laws. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Secretary of the Coir Board issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service and not being satisfied with the explanation, the Secretary passed an order for dismissal of the appellant. Appeal preferred by the appellant to the Chairman of the Coir Board was dismissed. A review petition was filed before the Central Government against the said order, but he did not receive any reply. Thereupon, he issued a notice on 7th January, 1974, to the defendant demanding an amount of Rs. 40,000 as damages for wrongful dismissal from service. To this, the Secretary of the Coir Board sent a reply dated 13th March, 1974, stating that the dismissal was in order and no claim for damages was entertainable. Thereupon, the appellant filed the above suit. In the plaint, the appellant averred that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer constituted himself as the Presenting Officer and judge and this has violated the principles of natural justice and also the provisions of the Coir Board Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Bye-laws, 1969. He also alleged other irregularities in the conduct of the enquiry and stated that the enquiry was illegal and the resultant dismissal also was illegal and, therefore, he was entitled to get an amount of Rs. 40,000 as damages for the loss of service.

(3.) IN the written statement, the respondent admitted that the appellant was a class IV employee of the Coir Board and was dismissed from service on 17th April, 1972, but the respondent contended that the dismissal order was passed after a proper enquiry and on misconduct in violation of bye-laws 3, 9 and 15 of the Coir Board Employees' (Conduct) Bye-laws being proved against the appellant. The other allegations and irregularities were also denied in the written statement. It was also contended that the appellant challenged the order of dismissal before this Court in a writ petition, i. e. , O. P. No. 4813 of 1972, which was dismissed by this Court as per exhibit B-8 judgment dated 9th January, 1972, and that would operate as res judicata.