R KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point for consideration posed before this Court is as to whether the respondents would be entitled to continue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner even after his retirement, in the absence of the rules in this regard entitling the respondents to continue the enquiry.

(2.) Following are the few facts, which give rise to the above point for consideration. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Mechanic in the respondent Indian Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the "Institute") in the year 1965. He was promoted as Supervisor, Chemical Engineering and is a workman as per the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was also a member of the Indian Institute of Technology Employees' Association. The respondent Institute issued a circular dated 2.3.99 followed by another circular dated 4.3.99 warning the employees not to participate in any demonstration during working hours and directing the employees to sign the attendance register in both the sessions viz., morning and afternoon. The circulars were protested by the employees as it amounted to alteration of service conditions and the Institute cannot unilaterally alter the service conditions. However, under protest the petitioner signed the attendance register during both sessions from 4.3.99 to 14.3.99. From 15.3.99, the petitioner did not sign the attendance register in the afternoon session till 15.10.99. Since the petitioner did not sign in the afternoon, he was not paid half salary for the period from 15.3.99 to 15.10.99. From 16.10.99 to 31.10.99 the petitioner was on leave and therefore, he was paid full salary.

(3.) Based upon the circulars, the Institute issued another circular dated 28.4.99 directing recovery of salary to those employees who have not signed the attendance register on both sessions. The petitioner questioned the said circular dated 28.4.99 in W.P.No.8139 of 1999, but was unsuccessful as this Court by order dated 25.10.99 found no illegality in the circular. This Court also found that the circulars dated 2.3.99 and 4.3.99 were well within the power of the Institute. Thereafter, when the petitioner reported duty on 1.11.99, he was issued with an order of suspension dated 27.10.99 with immediate effect. The petitioner was also issued with a charge sheet dated 11.11.99 for the alleged misconduct of not signing the attendance register twice daily and also the petitioner filed the writ petition without taking prior permission of the authorities, and hence violated Rule 16(a) of Schedule 'B' of Conduct Rules of the Statutes of the Institute. Though explanations dated 29.11.99 and 31.1.2000 were submitted, not satisfied with those explanations, an enquiry was conducted and an ex parte enquiry report was also submitted. Based on the enquiry report, the Institute issued a second show cause notice dated 19.4.2000 proposing punitive action as per Statute 13(9)(b)(iv). On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner requested one month's time for giving reply after consulting his lawyer. In the circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court questioning the circulars dated 2.3.99 and 4.3.99 and also the second show cause notice dated 19.4.2000.