G MURALI DHAR Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of the Electronics Corporation of India Limited (for short 'ECIL'). The petitioner was placed under suspension by Orders dated 18-1-1993 and subsequently a Charge Memo was issued and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, adomestic enquiry was ordered vide Proceedings dated 6-4-1993 of the Chairman and Managing Director, ECIL. The Enquiry Officer after considering the evidence submitted his findings and thereafter the Chairman and Managing Director, ECIL supplied a copy thereof to the petitioner giving an opportunity to him to make his representation, if any, against the Enquiry Report and after receiving the representation of the petitioner dated 24-8-1993, the Chairman and Managing Director by his Proceedings dated 18-9-1993, in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority, imposed the penalty of "removal from service not amounting to a disqualification for future employment'' with immediate effect. This is the Order assailed by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Several contentions have been raised by Sri. M. V.Raja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner. The foremost being with regard to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the Chairman and Managing Director who according to the petitioner is the Appellate Authority under the Rules and therefore the entire enquiry is vitiated, contends learned counsel for the petitioner. Other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are that the alleged misconduct does not constitute misconduct much less of serious nature warranting the punishment of removal from service and that the domestic enquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice and that the petitioner has been discriminated against while similarly placed employees were given lesser punishment.

(3.) A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations and the aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioner. It is however admitted that the General Manager is the Disciplinary Authority in so far as the petitioner is concerned, accordingto Schedule (1) to the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Respondent Organisation and that the Chairman and Managing Director-Respondent No.1 can always act as Disclipnary Authority and that the higher authority can always impose punishment as per the rules and that the petitioner's contention that the right of appeal has been taken away is incorrect in as much as the opportunity for appeal is provided against the Orders of Chairman and Managing Director to the Board of Directors and the petitioner having failed to avail of the said remedy of appeal, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. That the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice have been strictly followed through out the proceedings and the allegations of discrimination etc., are untenable.