MANOJ H MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order declaring the order of revisional authority the respondent No.3 dated 20-8-1996 removing the petitioner from services, as illegal. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 20-8-1996 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of removal dated 30-3-1996.

(2.) Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application as per the petitioner are that the petitioner was working in the Nuclear Power Corporation at Kakarapar Atomic Power Project (for short ? the KAPP?) in the post of Tradesman and was the President of Kakarapar Unit Kendriya Sachivalaya Hindi Parishad. That he was selected as General Secretary of the recognized union of Class III and Class IV of KAPP on 7-2-1993. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that monsoon of 1994 was violent and there were heavy rains and water of Kakarapar dam was flowing beyond the danger level. As a result, the dam authorities had to open the gates and let water flow. That the Kakarapar lake received the dam water through a canal which is an inter-link. The water of the lake is used by the respondent authorities for power generation. On the night of 15-7-1994, the flood water entered in the Kakarapar lake and within no time, the flood water entered into the plant. Before the next morning, more than 25 ft. of the turbine which is adjacent to the Nuclear reactor was submerged into the water and entire record room and computer room were washed away. That apart, some of the barrels containing nuclear wastes were also washed away by the flood water. On 16th July, emergency was declared and the respondent authorities started taking preventive measures. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that every one raised questions as to why and how the flood water could not be prevented by the engineers in charge and why emergency measures were not taken in the night to prevent flood water from entering into turbine and other areas of the plant in the operation island. That the respondent authorities placed the petitioner under suspension by an order dated 5-7-1994 intimating him that the disciplinary proceeding for major penalty was being contemplated. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 4-8-1994 alleging inter alia that the petitioner while functioning as Tradesman/B in KAAP established contacts with press correspondence and fed him with information which might have come to his possession in course of his duty and has thereby criticized the project management and cast aspersions on the authorities and has thus committed breach of oath of secrecy warranting major penalty. An inquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority and the preliminary hearing took place on 26-12-1994. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that a assurance was given by the respondent No.2 that if the petitioner accepts the charges, in that case, a lenient view will be taken of the entire matter and leniency would be shown while imposing the punishment and therefore, the petitioner has resigned on 23-9-1995 from the preliminary membership of the Union and also admitted all the charges levelled against him and requested the inquiry officer to close the proceeding through his Defence Assistant. The inquiry officer declared the inquiry as closed. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the inquiry officer submitted the report and while concluding his report dated 20-12-1995 held all the charges against the petitioner as proved on the basis of admission of all the charges by the petitioner. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 20-12-1995 to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was served with the inquiry report on 4-1-1996 along with a letter from the disciplinary authority giving a petitioner a chance to make representation in view of the report submitted by the inquiry officer. The petitioner made his representation on 16-3-1996. After examining all the records and the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 30-3-1996 removing the petitioner from service holding him guilty of charges framed against him. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of removal, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.4 which came to be rejected by order dated 27-5-1996 against which the petitioner preferred representation before the revisional authority which also came to be dismissed by order dated 20-8-1996. Against which, the present Special Civil Application has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri Girish Patel, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has only made one submission that looking to the allegations and the charges proved against the petitioner, the order of removal is too harsh and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate. It is submitted that when in good faith the petitioner admitted all the charges and on assurance by the respondent No.2 that if he admits all the charges, a lenient view will be taken while imposing the punishment and therefore, it is requested to consider the question of penalty.