BALBIR VASISHT Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the parties are one and the same and both the petitions arise out of the some departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Respondent Corporation against the petitioner and are interconnected and hence both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Special Civil Applications No.. 7184/91 and 1922/96 are interconnected and pertaining to the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and hence both these petitions were directed to be heard together by the order dated 7-12-1999. Both these petitions have been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner for two days and both these petitions were kept for hearing the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation on 22-12-1999. On 23-12-1999 learned counsel for the respondent Corporation contended that this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear Spl. C.A. No. 1922/96 and the same should be released to be heard by another bench as this Bench has not been entrusted with hearing of the Special Civil Applications for the year 1995 and onward. Business for hearing Spl. C. Applications from 1980 to 1994 is entrusted to this Bench. Learned counsel for the respondent did not intend to argue Spl. C.A. 1922/96 before this Bench, when this Bench refused the request of learned counsel for the respodnent as no party can claim to argue his case before a particular Bench then learned counsel for the respondent requested this Court to hear him in both these petition and he was permitted to argue both these petitions before this Bench. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation was given full opportunity of hearing and heard at length in both the petition. It is pertinent to note here that the respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-reply in the petition being S.C.A. No. 7184/91.

(3.) The petitioner applied for the post of Law Officer in the respondent Corporation by an application dated 15-10-1983 and after holding interview on 27-4-1984 the petitioner was appointed as a Law Officer vide the appointment letter dated 14-5-1984. After completion of the probation period the petitioner was confirmed in the service as the Law Officer by the order dated 12/14-12-1984 with effect from 15-6-1984 and the petitioner was placed in regular pay-scale of the General Manager. Later on, he was given additional charge of the Head of Vigilance Department and thereafter that of administration and personnel department in addition to his own charge of Legal Department. In the year 1985 C.B.I. registered the cases against some of the officers of the respondent Corporation on the preliminary report submitted by the petitioner as Vigilance Officer of the respondent - Corporation. The petitioner was required to attend annual conference of the Personnel Executives at Bombay. On return the petitioner submitted his T.A and D.A. claim. The petitioner was transferred from Ahmedabad to Rajkot. The petitioner challenged his transfer order by filing Spl. C.A. No.5508/86 in this Court wherein the petitioner was directed to resume his duties at Ahmedabad and the order of transfer was stayed. Later on, the respondent Corporation agreed not to implement the transfer order and hence the said petition was withdrawn. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mr. Dalal retired from the service in the year 1987. But he issued a show cause notice dated 10-4-1987 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was guilty of claiming Rs. 285.00/ more than what was due to him by way of T.A. and D.A. when he visited Bombay in February, 1986 for attending annual conference of Personnel Executives and in pursuance of the show cause notice the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged his dismissal order in this Court by way of filing Spl. C.A. No. 4904/87 wherein this Court issued the notice and the implementation and execution of the order was stayed vide order dated 29-9-1987 and the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties. Ultimately, the respondent Corporation filed Civil Application No. 745/89 in Spl. C.A. No. 4904/87 with an agreement therein that the respondent Corporation will hold de-novo inquiry in accordance with law from the stage from which it was conducted exparte against the petitioner. As such Spl. C.A. No.4904/87 had became infructuous and it was withdrawn on 20-06-1989.