HIRENDRA MOHAN BASU Vs. TEXTILES COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the original Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 160 of 1989 against order dated Feb. 27, 1989 passed by the learned single Judge summarily dismissing the petition. The facts giving rise to passing of this order are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the Appellant.

(2.) The Appellant was employed as an Inspector by Respondent No.1 Textile Committee constituted under Textile Committee's Act, 1963. The appellant was in employment from Dec. 16, 1983 and the appellant was required to inspect textile materials in accordance with the regulations framed by the Committee and to issue certificates after the inspection, if the material inspected is found to be of the prescribed standard. Respondent No. 1 received an application from M/s. Cimmoo International for inspection of certain pieces of dyed embossed velvet fabrics. The material was to be exported to Russia. Mr. G.N. Murthy, Officer of the Textile Committee, instructed the appellant on Dec. 23, 1983 to visit the premises of M/s. Usha Dye Prints and inspect 62 cases containing dyed embossed velvet fabrics. It is the claim of the Appellant that inspection was carried out and certificate was issued. M/s.Usha Dye Prints offered further quantity for inspection and that inspection was carried out by two other officers by name Vaidhyanathan and Barewar. Subsequently Mr. Nandrekar, the Vigilance Officer found on the complaint received that the Appellant had not carried out his duties but granted certificate in favour of M/s. Usha Dye Prints without any inspection. The Vigilance Officer also noticed that the other two inspectors Vaidhyanathan and Barewar also did not carry out his duties. The Committee thereupon decided to adopt disciplinary proceedings against the three inspectors. Inspector Barewar left the job and therefore proceedings commenced only against the appellant and Vaidhyanathan.

(3.) On Feb. 23, 1984 the Appellant was served with an order of suspension and thereafter charge-sheet was levelled against the Appellant and the inquiry was conducted. The inquiry proceedings were conducted between July 31, 1985 and Sept. 26, 1985. The Appellant appeared before the Inquiry Officer and resisted the proceedings without taking any assistance of either a lawyer or any of the employees of the Committee, although the appellant was entitled to do so. Before the Inquiry Officer seven witnesses were examined and they were Nandurkar, Venkatrao, Shankaraya, Vaidya, Khedekar and Ghosh. The Presenting Officer also examined G.N. Murthy, who was the supervising officer of the Appellant and the Appellant cross-examined him extensively. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding. that the charges levelled against the Appellant were duly proved. The finding of the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and the order of dismissal from employment was passed on May 30, 1986. The appellant preferred appeal. against the order of dismissal as contemplated by the Regulations. The appeal was dismissed by order dated July 29, 1987 and that order was challenged by the Appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 2051 of 1987 in this Court on the ground that the Appellant was not heard before dismissal of the appeal. Respondents were then directed to give hearing to the Appellant and then pass appropriate order. In accordance with the directions of this Court, the appeal was reheard and by order dated June 20, 1988 the appeal ended in dismissal. The order of dismissal was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.160 of 1988 and the learned Judge summarily dismissed the petition. The order of summary rejection is under challenge.