K.N. CHAINANI Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner by this Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is praying for setting aside the Order dated 20th Oct. 1987, passed by the Director of the Respondent dismissing the petitioner from service and the Order dated 29th Aug. 1988, passed by the Board of Governors on Appeal.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk with the respondent in Dec. 1960. He came to be promoted to the post of 'Assistant' on 11-06-1975 and on 28-05-1981 he came to be further promoted as Junior Office Superintendent. The petitioner came to be suspended on 14-12- 1981. He was issued charge-sheet on 24- 12-1981. An inquiry came to be conducted against him. The Inquiry Officer submitted a Report on 04-08-1986. The Disciplinary Authority (Director) agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and passed the order on 27-10-1986. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29-10-1986 to show cause why penalty of dismissal should not be imposed upon him in view of the finding of gross misconduct. The final order dismissing the petitioner from service came to be passed by the Director on 20-10- 1987. The petitioner filed an Appeal before the Board of Governors and it came to be rejected by the Board of Governors by Order dated 29-08-1988.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner for assailing the Inquiry Report submitted that only Mr.Wagh was examined as a Handwriting Expert and it was an error to rely upon his evidence since the High Court has adversely commented upon his integrity in the Order passed on 30-09/01-10/05-10- 1987 in Suit No. 17 of 1983. In the said suit, it came to be held that the opinion given by Mr. Wagh was not accepted because he is an expert who moulds his opinion to suit his clients. It is submitted that if that evidence is excluded, then there is no evidence whatsoever to hold the petitioner guilty of any of the charges levelled against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner examined his own Handwriting Expert by name Shri Phansalkar. He was cross-examined on several dates, but deliberately it was prolonged and it could not be completed. Due to age and bad health, he could not attend the court. It was an error to exclude his testimony fully. It that is relied upon, then the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty. It is next submitted that the Director was not the competent authority to pass an order of dismissal against the petitioner since he was in the scale of Rs. 550- Rs. 900 for the post of Junior Superintendent. In view of the Sec. 25 of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as the "I.T. Act") the Board of Governors was the competent authority to appoint him to that post and consequently, to dismiss him. The director was the subordinate authority and could not have passed such an order.