VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. MD NAZIRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This batch of appeals is preferred by the employer of the respective respondents questioning the common order of the learned Single judge where under the learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment of dismissal of the respondent in each case and substituted it by directing reinstatement of each of the respondent but denying the back wages and giving opportunity to the appellant to impose any minor punishment, keeping in view the findings under the enquiry report.

(2.) WE have heard Sri D. Prakash reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in this batch and Sri P. V. Krishnaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in each of these cases.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel, at the outset, has submitted that the order impugned is in conformity with the findings of fact reached against each of the respondents, in this batch, by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority and as such, the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the discretionary power exercised by the disciplinary authority in imposing the punishment. He has further contended that the respondents were put to notice in accordance with law and they have participated in the disciplinary proceedings and it is not as if that any rules of natural justice or that of holding enquiry are violated. Learned Counsel relied upon the findings of the enquiry officer with respect to the charges framed against the respective respondents and has contended that these findings being based on material produced during the enquiry, there is nothing illegal and impermissible for the disciplinary authority to take the entire material into consideration and impose the punishment. The learned counsel would contend that the charges against each respondent being serious, the punishment of dismissal does not deserve to be interfered with, especially under article 226 of the Constitution of India.