BABU THOMAS Vs. GOA SHIPYARD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this Petition in order to challenge the order of dismissal dated 21.1.1997 passed by Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent - M/s Goa Shipyard Limited as well as the order of rejection of his appeal against the said order by the Appellate Authority on 27.9.1997 and to further seek directions of his reinstatement of service of the respondent with full back wages. 2. The respondent - M/s. Goa Shipyard Limited, is Government of India Public Sector undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Initially, it is revealed, the petitioner was appointed as a Joint Manager (Security) in March, 1991 and thereafter he was made officiating Manager (Personnel and Administration) with respondent company w.e.f August, 1991. According to the petitioner, he was framed up in a case of criminal misconduct on the allegation of collecting/accepting illegal gratification from one Mr. Chinnaiah, a Labour Contractor of the respondent company and was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, CID of Goa police on 14.9.94; and was thereafter placed under suspension and subjected to a Departmental inquiry on several charges vide charge-sheet dated 15.12.1994 issued unr der the signature of the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent company.

(2.) The petitioner was thus charged for misconduct under Rule 23 of the Goa Shipyard Officer's Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979 under the following heads :

(3.) It is further revealed, that one Mr. N.P. Kumar, General Manager (Production) of the respondent company was appointed as Enquiry Officer and part of the evidence of the principal witness Mr. Chinnaiah was recorded before him. However, the departmental proceedings were stayed on account of the interim orders passed in Writ Petition No. 137/95 moved by the petitioner before this Court on the ground that the departmental inquiry should not have been initiated during pendency of the criminal case. Ultimately, it is revealed, the said Petition was disposed off and stay vacated with the directions to the Enquiry Officer to consider the supply of necessary relevant documents. The petitioner was also permitted to have assistance of an Advocate in the said departmental proceedings. Subsequently, it appears, Cdr. General Manager, Commercial of the respondent company further conducted and concluded the inquiry with his report and recorded his findings with the charges at Serial 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13 stood proved.