ASHOK SESHADRI Vs. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as Senior Manager (Marketing Co-ordination), Head Office of the Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company Limited at Ootacamund in June 1975 and worked in various capacities. While so, he was subjected to disciplinary action through the charge sheet dated 22. 4. 1994 on an allegation that while he was working as Purchasing Manager in the Purchase Division he had indulged in acts of misconducts. Altogether 6 charges are framed against him. He gave explanation denying all the charges.

(2.) IN the mean while, on 3. 2. 1995 he had submitted his resignation on personal reasons. The same was rejected by the Management through their letter dated 7. 2. 1995, for administrative reasons. Thereafter, on 17. 2. 1995 he received a communication that enquiry has been initiated against him and several other persons. Enquiry was conducted. The proceedings of the enquiry reveal that the petitioner submitted a detailed defence statement, so also the prosecution. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14. 7. 1995 holding him guilty and the Management has accepted the same and issued a show cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal. He sent a reply setting out the reasons that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perversive. He was reiterated his request for resignation and the same was not accepted. Finally orders of punishment of dismissal was imposed and the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 28. 12. 1995. He filed an appeal and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order of the first respondent the Appellate Authority for dismissing his appeal without giving any reasons. The petitioner is also challenging the findings of the enquiry.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority is one and the same person therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is next contended that the impugned order is not a speaking order and reasons are not assigned. It is contended that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer is illegal as he insisted for additional documents and relied on these. It is stated that there was no witness to substantiate the documents and to prove the linkages between the documents and allegation and the Enquiry Officer has deliberately overlooked the fact. It is stated that there is a bias for the Enquiry Officer in favour of the Management. Sum and substance of the contentions of the petitioner is that he has not indulged in any misconduct and he is not directly or indirectly involved for any those allegations and there is no financial loss to the company in any event, and the enquiry is not properly held and the Enquiry Officer is a biased person and he has not followed the principles of natural justice and perverse findings are given by him and on the erroneous report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty and the same person has decided his appeal. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.