P PALANI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the second respondent waives service. By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The appellant was an employee of the Indian Airlines. A charge memo dated 1.10.1991 was issued to the appellant, with an allegation that the appellant had collected 41,000 Malaysian Ringitts from one Sudalaimuthu, a Malaysian national, on a promise that the appellant will get an admission in Medical College in Tamil Nadu for the daughter of Sudalaimuthu, by name Bhuvaneswari. The appellant collected the said amount, but could not provide the medical admission to the complainant's daughter! Thereafter, a complaint was received by the Indian Airlines and the Management treated it as a misconduct as envisaged in Clause Nos. 16(8) and 16(39) of Standing Orders (Regulations) Concerning Discipline and Appeals, 1961 of the Indian Airlines Corporation, for which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 9122 of 1992, challenging the charge memo. It was contended that already C.B.I, investigation was initiated on the same facts and therefore, departmental action is not valid. The said writ petition was dismissed on 10.7.1992, observing that there is no bar in proceeding with the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the case investigated by the C.B.I., Chennai was transferred to the Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai, as the alleged transaction involves foreign exchange. Again, the petitioner challenged the enquiry proceedings through Writ Petition No. 10046 of 1995 on the ground that since the said case was transferred to the Enforcement Directorate, the Management should not proceed with the departmental proceedings till the finality of the criminal proceedings. Initially, the enquiry was stayed for a while and thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed. A writ appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the enquiry proceedings proceeded. The complainant Sudalaimuthu and his close relative, one T.S. Arumugam were examined as witnesses on behalf of the Management and Exs.M.E.1 to M.E.24 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, his wife A. Devasena and his daughter, P. Jansi Rama Bai were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and Exs.W.1 to W.6 were marked. The appellant was not examined as witness.