S MADHUSOODANAN NAIR Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of the respondents/Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., who was holding the post of Deputy Manager (Assistant Quality Control) seeks to quash the impugned order of dismissal dated 13.09.1993 and also seeks directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, in service.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he had put in more than 26 years of unblemished service. From 15.9.1992 to 17.9.2002 he accompanied his close friend one Balamurali Krishna, an employee of the first respondent Company and he visited his project at Nagda. According to the petitioner, as Balamurali Krishna was a close friend, he wanted to help him to put up a lay out for which the petitioner had not received any monetary benefit. At that time he was on personal leave. However, for reasons best known to the Vigilance Department his visit was enquired into and in fact, before the Vigilance he also gave a statement regarding purpose of his visit on 23.9.1992. However, on the same date, he was suspended from the post on the ground that he had colluded with a third party and parted with the secret information of the Company. He was charge sheeted on 4.11.1992 alleging that he had clandestinely passed a design drawing owned by the Bharat Heavy Electricals to Balamurali Krishna and that the said document was a secret drawing. The said conduct, according to the respondents was violative of Rule 12 of the B.H.E.L. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (hereinafter called "the Rules. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. The enquiry commenced on 4.2.1993 and after proceeding on several dates finally concluded on 21.7.1993. The petitioner was found not guilty of some of the charges, but was found guilty that he had enjoyed hospitality provided by Balamurali Krishna and that he unauthorisedly disclosed the technical know-how which were secrets of the Company. As regards the charge relating to payment of monetary amount, it was held that the same was not proved. He filed an appeal as provided under the Rules to the first respondent on 29.9.1993. According to the petitioner, the first respondent without providing any opportunity, dismissed the appeal. Hence the above writ petition.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was working in the respondent Company. He was assigned the responsibilities of design, drawing and site work in the department of Air Quality Control Systems. As part of his assignment, he was entrusted with the Company's secret information about the company product including design, drawing etc. There are competitors for the second respondent company in the said business. The petitioner who was assigned onerous responsibilities, colluded with the competitor companies and acted prejudicial to the interest of the second respondent Company by parting with secret information. He was rendering technical advice to Balamurali Krishna of M/s.Smrithi Erection & Services pertaining to supply and erection of the said product. The petitioner had also passed on the design and lay-out drawings which are the secret documents of the company. The petitioner also visited the site of M/s.Grasim Industries at Nagda. He was absent from his Headquarters from 14.9.1992 to 18.9.1992 without informing the second respondent the real purpose and place of his visit during such absence. He had merely submitted a leave application without mentioning the purpose of the leave and address of stay. During his travel and stay, he enjoyed the lavish hospitality, free transport, boarding and lodging facilities from Balamurali Krishna in consideration of his clandestine association with him which was against the interest of the second respondent and hence violative of the BHEL Rules.