M V KALIDAS Vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner are interdicted.

(2.) The Petitioner passed I.T.I, certificate (Plumber), he joined the 1st Respondent company as Apprentice in February, 1960. Thereafter he was appointed as Plumber Grade-II from 9-12-1962. The Petitioner was promoted as Chargeman on 30-5-1974 and further promoted as Supervisor on 28-6-1978. Hewasagain promoted as Ehgineer with effect from 1-8-1982 and he was confirmed in the post of Engineer from 1-8-1983. At the time of his employment in the 1st Respondent company, the petitioner produced the educational certificate issued by the school authorities, wherein the caste of the petitioner was noted a 'KondaKapu'. The petitioner further submits that he never declared his caste as belonging to ST., and he did not claim any reservations either at the time of appointment or at the time of promotions under S.T. category. He was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was appointed on the basis of the merit in 1960. He was being promoted to higher posts from time to time depending upon the merit and seniority. It is also his case that at no point of time, the management informed him that he was promoted against the vacancy reserved for S.T. category. On the other hand the petitioner asserts that he was promoted to the higher post in accordance with the career plan scheme for Officers introduced by the company where the reservations S.C. and S.T. are not contemplated. While so, the management issued a notice dated 16-12-1983 informed the petitioner that he declared his caste as 'Konda Kapu' at the time of his appointment and that he did not submit the certificate and therefore he was called upon to submit the S.T. certificate. Another reminder was issued on 16-3-1984, the petitioner filed representations on20-3-1984 informing the management the he did not possess any other certificates except S.S.L.C. Register in proof of his caste and that he never claimed any preference on the basis of caste either at the time of appointment or at the time of promotion. On 27-8-1986, the management informed the petitioner that he was promoted twice against the S.T. quota in the year 1978 and 1982 and therefore, they directed the petitioner to produce S.T. certificate, otherwise he will be reverted to original post. The petitioner again appears to have informed that he did not know on what basis the caste was entered as 'KondaKapu' and that he had no intention of misleading authorities. However, amemo was issued on 16-4-1989 framing certain charges against the petitioner alleging thatthe petitioner joined the service declaring his caste as 'Konda Kapu' which falls under S.T. community, that basing on the declaration, he was promoted as Supervisor in the year 1978 and even as Engineer in the year 1982 against the vacancy reserved for S.Ts. It was therefore alleged that the petitioner made a false declaration about his caste and enjoyed the benefits of the promotion twice which amounts to cheating and dishonesty constituting misconduct under Rule 5(4) of O.D.ARules applicable to the Officers. The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the charge, however an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry into the charges. One Witness was examined on behalf of the management and the evidence was closed and the matter was reserved for the findings of the enquiry officer. In the meanwhile, the case of the petitioner came up for promotion to E-II Cadre and he was called for an Interview before the departmental promotional committee on 22-12-1990,however the petitioner submits that his case was not considered on account of the pendency of the enquiry.

(3.) The petitionersubmits that the 2nd Respondent/Enquiry Officer issued notice dated 22-12-1990 informing that the disciplinary authority directed him to reopen the enquiry to adduce additional evidence on which the presenting officer failed to produce during the examination of the management witnesses. In view of the above, the enquiry into the charges framed vide Charge dated 16-4-1990 are reopened and posted for examination. The said order of the enquiry officer is assailed in this Writ Petition.