DEEPAK GANGULY Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 29.1.1986 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) dismissing the petitioner form service and imposing a disqualification for future employment any where either in Government or autonomous body on undertaking inflicted by the Director, Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Assailing the impugned order Mr. A.P. Shahi, learned Counsel for the petitioner raises three grounds: (i) inspection of documents demanded by the petitioner was not accorded to him, the petitioner was disallowed from examining the witnesses list of which was furnished, accepting 14 out of them and that before inflicting punishment, the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied, by reason whereof there has been violation of principles of natural justice vitiating the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed (ii) assuming not admitting that the charges were proved and the petitioner was guilty, even that event, the punishment is too harsh and disproportionate considering the graveness of the charges alleged to have been proved, (iii) the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding having not been made in compliance with' Clause 16(b) of the Memorandum of Association, the disciplinary proceedings is void abinitio.

(2.) Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary point to the maintainability of writ against the respondents, a society registered under the Society Registration Act, not being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as has already been held in an earlier case against the present society/institute itself by this court.

(3.) On the question of merits, Mr. Naithani contends that the first point raised by Mr. Shahi relating to violation of natural justice is only procedural and, therefore, the question is to be reviewed on the principle of prejudice which according to him in the facts and circumstances of the case is non-existent with regard to the second point, his contention is that out of 8 charges, though apparently six having been proved may not seem to be grave but the cumulative effect of the same to be a grave one warranting the punishment inflicted and that part in exercising of revisional jurisdiction, which the High Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution, the quantum of punishment cannot be altered or interfered with. With regard to the 3rd contention of Mr. Shahi, Mr. Naithani contends that the petitioner having participated in all through the proceedings and having not raised the question at any stage and even not making out such a case in the writ petition, is not entitled to raise the question simply on the basis of a plea raised in the rejoinder affidavit in respect whereof the petitioner did not have any opportunity to reply or meet the case. The writ petition, according to him, should, therefore, be dismissed.