D SWAMINATHAN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is preferred against the order, dated 23. 7. 1993, passed by the learned single Judge on Review Application No.24 of 1992 filed for review of the order, dated 4. 11.1992, passed in W.P. No. 10398 of 1992. As the review application has been rejected, the appeal is virtually against the order, dated 4. 11.1992, dismissing W.P. No. 10398 of 1992.

(2.) IN the writ petition the petitioner sought for quashing the order, dated 5. 2. 1991 passed by the Manager, United INsurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Madras, removing him from service and also the order, dated 9. 10. 1991 passed by the Assistant General Manager, United INdia INsurance Company Limited affirming the order of third respondent. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the order, " dated 20. 7. 1992 passed by the first respondent, M/s.United INdia INsurance Company Limited.

(3.) IN the instant case, seven charges were framed against the appellant/ petitioner. The enquiring Authority held that charge Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 were not proved, whereas charge Nos.2, 4 and 5 were proved. The Disciplinary Authority reversed the finding on charge No. 1 and approved the findings recorded on the other charges, without affording an opportunity to the appellant/ petitioner and without furnishing a copy of the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority. On the basis of the conclusion so arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority removed the petitioner from service. When the writ appeal came up before us for hearing on 8. 11.1994, we passed the following order, after hearing both sides. "IN this case, it is not in dispute that the Enquiring Authority is different from the Disciplinary Authority. After the report was submitted by the Enquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment, without furnishing the report of Enquiring Authority and without affording an opportunity to the employee to put forth his say to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Authority. The Disciplinary Authority also did not give opportunity to the employee to explain as to why the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority on charge Nos.1,3,6 and 7 should not be reversed and the findings recorded on charge Nos.2,4 and 5 should not be accepted. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the propositions laid down in paragraph Nos.30 and 31 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar, (1994)1 L.L.J. 162 are attracted. Therefore, before hearing the matter further, we grant two weeks time to the employee to file an affidavit stating as to how his case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report of the Enquiring Officer and also to show cause as to how he is prejudiced by the Management reversing the finding on charge No. 1 and accepting the findings on other charges." Accordingly the appellant has filed the affidavit stating as to how and in what manner the prejudice is caused to him. There is a counter affidavit filed by one M. V. Natesan, the third respondent in the appeal. The said counter affidavit is filed on behalf of all the respondents. On going through the affidavit of the appellant/ petitioner, we notice the appellant/ petitioner has stated in greater detail as to how and in what manner the finding arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority on charge No.1 is not correct. Similarly how and in what manner the findings recorded on charge Nos.2, 4 and 5 are also not correct. IN the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, it has not been stated as to in what manner the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner/ appellant are correct and how the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are valid.