LAV NIGAM Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question involved in this writ petition relates to the procedure to be adopted in a case where the disciplinary authority does not agree with the report of inquiry officer exonerating the charged officer. In such a case, is he required to give two notices: one before recording the finding on guilt of the charged officer and the second before awarding punishment or can these two notices be combined into one?

(2.) The petitioner was the Manager (shipping) Transmission Division, with Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Naini, Allahabad (ITI). He was charge-sheeted on 18.1.1996. Three charges (see endnote-1) were levelled against the petitioner. The inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the inquiry report and issued a show cause notice dated 7.7.1999 mentioning reason for his disagreement and also asking him to show cause why he may not be removed from service. The petitioner filed his reply and sought time to see some more documents before submitting his reply. These documents were shown to him on 11.8.1997 and he submitted his reply on 22.9.1997. The disciplinary authority found the charges nos. 1 and 2 to be proved against the petitioner and by his order dated 22.5.1998 removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 16.11.1998, hence the present writ petition.

(3.) We have heard counsels for the parties. Following points arise for determination: