HARILAL A. MAHIDA Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present OA is preferred by the applicant challenging the memorandum of charge dated 25.7.2006, the report of the inquiry officer dated 28.12.2007, the order of penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.3.2010, and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28.7.2011 respectively at Annexure A -1, Annexure A 4, Annexure A 8 and Annexure A..

(2.) THE dispute relates to disciplinary action taken against the applicant by issuing the memorandum of charge dated 25.7.2006 vide Annexure A 1. The events leading to filing of the present OA in the first briefly are as follows: -

(3.) THE applicant submits that the charge memorandum was served on him and by his letter dated 3.8.2006, denied the charges. Subsequently, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed by the respondents vide order dated 8.9.2006. After the conclusion of the inquiry on 5.11.2007, the Presenting Officer submitted his written brief to the Inquiry Officer with a copy to the applicant. On receipt of the copy of written brief submitted by the Presenting Officer, the applicant submitted his defence brief before the inquiry officer on 7.12.2007(Annexure A3). Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued the show cause notice vide memorandum No.VO/Conf/2005/24/Part III dated April, 2008 furnishing a copy of the report of Inquiry Officer dated 26.12.2007(Annexure A 4). Vide his representation dated 13.5.2008 vide Annexure A 7, he has replied to the said show cause notice. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority by order dated 24.3.2010 vide Annexure A 8 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the applicant. As against the said order dated 24.3.2010, the applicant preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 28.7.2011 vide Annexure A rejected the appeal.