B R RASHTRAPAL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR TRIBAL CO OPERATIVE MARKETING DEVLOPMENT FEDERATIOH OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G. Peda Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has questioned the orders dated 11-4-1996 of the Respondent dismissing the petitioner from service based upon the enquiry conducted into certain charges levelled against the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charges dated 3-8-1995 and later on, some more charges were framed against the petitioner by Memorandum dated 22-11-1995 and 26-2-1995. The petitioner underwent Coronary Artery By-pass Graft Surgery on 20-11-1995 in Mediciti Hospital, Hyderabad and was advised complete bed rest for a period of three months in the first instance and thereafter one month more and was given a Certificate to resume duty from 1-3-1996. In the the meanwhile, an Enquiry Officer was appointed who issued a Notice dated 16-1-1996 stating that the enquiry would be held on 29-1-1996 into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner by a letter dated 22-1-1996, requested adjournment by one month for participation in the enquiry on the Medical grounds. The Enquiry Officer, however, proceeded with the said enquiry ex parts on 30th and 31st January, 1996 holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The petitioner has assailed the said Enquiry proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and consequently sought a direction for declaring the impugned proceedings dated 11-4-1996 dismissing the petitioner from service based on the said Enquiry Report as illegal.

(3.) A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. The maintainability of the above Writ Petition is questioned on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 37 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1995 of TRIFLED. It is submitted in the Counter that the petitioner is involved in grave misconduct and failure to safeguard the financial and commercial interests of the Respondent. With regard to the Departmental Enquiry, it is stated that the petitioner did not participate and that the Departmental enquiry was held on 30-1-1996 and 31-1-1996. It is stated that the petitioner sought postponement of the Departmental Enquiry vide a letter dated 26-1-1996 on health grounds without any documentary evidence. The same was received on 29-1-1996 and the enquiry was therefore held ex parte. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officers, the petitioner was given another opportunity by disciplinary Authority vide its letter dated 6-3-1996 enclosing a copy of the Enquriy Report and the petitioner without offering any explanation sought further documents thereby establishing that he has no defence of the charges. It is further stated that the Disciplinary Authority based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the evidence on record, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f., 11-4-1996, since the petitioner failed to offer any explanation or adduce evidence rebutting the charges and allegations.