SUNIL Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE MINING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Kalyani marpakwar (Deshpande) , learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. A. B. Choudhari, learned counsel for respondent.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that on 16-11-1974, the petitioner was appointed as Mines Foreman and was posted at Pohara Mines in Bhandara district. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Junior Mining Engineer by order dated 13-08-1991. On 15-09-1983, the petitioner resigned from the post. In the year 1986 the petitioner again applied to the respondent for appointment on the post of Mining Engineer/ first Class Mines Manager, on the fixed pay of rs. 1,550/- per month plus other allowances in the pay scale of Rs. 1100 - 50 - 1550 - 75 - 1700. On 5-02-1988, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Mining Engineer/first class Mining Manager w. e. f. 07-04-1987.

(3.) That on 10-08-1988, the petitioner was transferred to Nagpur. On 19-08-1988, the petitioner was placed under suspension for contemplated enquiry. On 15-02-1989, memorandum of charges was handed over to the petitioner. The charge was under Rule 10 (B) (iii) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal rules of the Respondent. There were total 6 charges levelled against the petitioner. Along with the memorandum of charges dated 15- 02-1989, the petitioner was supplied with statement of allegations, list of witnesses and other documents. The petitioner was served with another charge-sheet dated 17-03-1990, wherein two additional charges were framed against the petitioner. On 10-08-1983, Shri. S. D. Solke, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. On 24-02-1989, the petitioner submitted representation and demanded various documents and also requested that he be allowed to be represented by a Lawyer. However, on 28-03-1989. the Managing Director refused permission to the petitioner to engage services of Lawyer. On 16-11-1989, the petitioner submitted his reply and denied all the charges levelled against the petitioner. On 20-03-1990 petitioner demanded copies of various documents, however, the said request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent vide their reply dated 10-04-1990.