NEMICHAND Vs. BRAHMA SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner against an order of his dismissal from service in the Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation), Indore.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed Class-A officer of the Corporation with the approval of the Board of Directors by an order dated the 25th June, I960, and he was working as a Superintendent in the Corporation. On 17th May, 1968 he was given a notice to show cause why disciplinary action under Regulation 40 of the M. P. Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1958, should not be taken against him on the basis of certain charges pertaining to bis joining an unrecognized association of Class-B and Class-C staff of the Corporation and also his having accepted to be its office-bearer and taking part in the activities of that association resorting to cessation of work. The petitioner submitted his reply to this show cause notice. According to the petitioner he was further given a memorandum in respect of language used by him in some letter. In pursuance of these charges, the secretary of the Corporation was appointed as enquiry officer. The petitioner objected to the appointment of the enquiry officer. It is alleged that later he also challenged the jurisdiction of the enquiry officer contending that there were no rules under which an enquiry could be conducted. After the completion of the enquiry, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Managing Director, and along with this notice the findings of the enquiry officer were also sent to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice, and by the order dated 26th November,1968 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Against this order of dismissal, the petitioner submitted an appeal, and the Board of Directors, after consideration of the appeal, dismissed it. When an intimation about this dismissal of the appeal was communicated to the petitioner, he made an application for getting a copy of the detailed order passed by the Board of Directors. But such a copy was not given to the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has raised various contentions challenging the appointment of enquiry officer and about the conduct of the enquiry. It has also been contended that the Managing Director had DO authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner has also contended that he could not be dismissed from service merely on the ground of his joining an association of employees as this was his fundamental right.