K MANICKAM Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR writ petitions have been filed by the same delinquent officer, a Manager in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'bhel' in short), one against the imposition of penalty, one petition praying for promotion as Senior Manager, one petition claiming as Deputy General Manager and petition to declare the promotion of one Parameswaran, junior to the petitioner as null and void. In so far as the petition in W. P. No. 7496 of 1989 is concerned, the prayer is to the following effect:

(2.) MR. N. R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel, contended that the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and that it vitiates the order of the second respondent. The other contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that the enquiry report was referred to the Vigilance Commission, that the Vigilance Commission tendered advice, that the report of the Vigilance Commission seems to be in favour of the petitioner and as such a copy of the Vigilance Commission's report ought to have been given to the petitioner. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the failure to give the vigilance commission's report to the petitioner vitiates the order of punishment. The learned senior counsel further contended that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of having an assistance during the enquiry, when the case was presented by the Inspector of Vigilance, on behalf of the management. The last contention raised by the learned senior counsel is that the order of the appellate authority is cryptic, that no reasons are given and that the appellate Authority had not applied its mind while passing such an order, under the Rules governing the service of the petitioner.

(3.) MR. B. T. Seshadri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, stoutly opposed the contentions raised by Mr. N. R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.