JOSE MATHEW Vs. K S I E LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was suspended by Ext. P1 order of the first respondent. Ext. P1 states that the petitioner who was holding full additional charge of the post of Managing Director of the second respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry by the Vigilance Department on the basis of serious allegations against him. THE petitioner along with others challenged the above order of suspension before this Court in O. P. No. 8928/97. THE above Original Petition was dismissed by this Court as per Ext. R2 (h ). THEreafter the second respondent initiated Departmental enquiry against the petitioner by serving a memo of charges and appointing an Enquiry Officer. Now the petitioner challenges the legality of the departmental enquiry- in this original Petition.

(2.) SRI. K. P. Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted two points for consideration of this Court: (1) The second respondent is incompetent to initiate disciplinary action and to conduct an enquiry against the petitioned because he was appointed by the first respondent. The first respondent is the Holding Company and the second respondent is the subsidiary Company. (2) There could not be any simultaneous enquiries by the Department and an investigation by the Vigilance Department.

(3.) THE facts of the above case reveal that the petitioner therein approached the High Court challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Company. Earlier, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. Still, the Enquiry Officer continued me disciplinary proceedings and found that he was guilty of the charges levelled against him and proposed dismissal from service.