OM PRAKASH S O VALLABHDAS JOSHI Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO OPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is taken up for hearing.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Grader in the respondent No. 1, federation. He was promoted as Senior Grader in the year 1986. On 18. 8. 1994, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner containing three charges. The first charge was that the petitioner was responsible for causing loss (in weight) of 4. 09 per cent while he was working at Ramchandra ginning Factory, Babhulgaon. The second charge was that the stones, earth, pieces of iron were found to be mixed in cotton seeds sold to M/s. Bajrang Oil Mills from the factory where the petitioner was working and the last charge was that there was a short fall of 22. 5 quintals of cotton seeds in the commodity sold to M/s. Gopal Oil Industries. One Shri Bhendarkar was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who held an enquiry into the charges and submitted his report on 3. 2. 1996 whereby he exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. The disciplinary authority, instead of taking further action on the report, appointed Shri S. M. All as the Inquiry Officer who held de novo enquiry against the petitioner and found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. Pursuant to the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer Shri all, the General Manager of the Federation after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service.

(3.) SHRI Parsodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised a number of points before us. We need to mention only one point viz. that the Disciplinary Authority had no authority to appoint Shri S. M. Ali to inquire the charges after the Inquiry Officer had reported in favour of the employee. It was urged before us that such an inquiry is not contemplated by the Service Rules for the employees of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Limited. It was contended that Rules did not contemplate successive inquiries, and at any rate even if it contemplated successive inquiries there was no provision for setting aside earlier enquiry without giving any reason whatsoever. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in K. R. Deb v. Collector, Central excise, Shillong.