NILIMA Vs. ENGG EXPORT PROMOTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the order of suspension dated 29th March 2005, Exhibit "B" to the Petition, charge sheet dated 28th April 2005, Exhibit "C" to the Petition, the order communicated on 11th August 2008, Exhibit "D" passed by the Committee of Administration and the inquiry proceedings initiated by the Department against the Petitioner on the basis that the charge sheet being violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law. The Petitioner has also prayed for grant of interim reliefs during the pendency of the Writ Petition.

(2.) The Petition came up for admission after, notice to the other side, and with the consent of the parties, the Petition itself was taken up for final disposal. Arguments were heard on 23rd and 24th September 2008 where after the case was reserved for judgment.

(3.) It is not necessary for us to notice the facts in greater detail suffice it to note that the Petitioner claims that she was appointed as Management Trainee in the Engineering Export Promotion Council (hereinafter referred to as "the Council"). During her service, she was sent abroad on deputation and given promotion. She was promoted as Regional Manager and her post was upgraded to that of Joint Director in October 2002 where she worked till she was suspended vide order dated 29th March 2005. A charge sheet was served upon her on 28th April 2005. The article of charges were stated in the charge sheet. It was stated that by misleading and making incorrect declaration regarding the real name of her mother to the Council and without declaring the personal interest on account of her mother being owner of Flat No.5, Shivsagar, 19, Worli Sea Face, Mumbai 400 025, entered into a lease agreement which was unfair to the interests of the Council. It was also stated that she had deliberately and intentionally concealed the fact to the Council that the said flat which was occupied by Council since 1971 was sold and transferred by the original owner to her mother on her instance and she had misused her position as Regional Manager and issued the renewal notice to have a personal gain. On these articles, she was served with the show cause notice and she was expected to reply to the said charge sheet within seven days. She denied the article of charges and submitted a detailed reply on 2nd February 2006. In furtherance, an inquiry was initiated and the said inquiry is pending till date. According to the Council, the Petitioner is not co-operating in completion of the departmental inquiry and has been filing cases after cases though unsuccessful. On the contrary, according to the Petitioner, she was compelled to approach the Court because the Respondents were acting unfairly and contrary to law in the departmental inquiry and even in other ancillary matters. According to her, the order of suspension was totally mala fide, arbitrary and impermissible.