V K KAUL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 6 -9 -2001 (An -nexure -P -10 -B) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate them. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially employed by respondent No.2 M.P. State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. as Co -ordinator (Accounts) and later he was transferred to its subsidiary company respondent No.3 Optel Telecommunications Ltd. as per order dated 28 -11 -1992 (An -nexure - P -3). He was served with a charge -sheet dated 3 -4 -1999 (Annexure P -4) containing three charges. The gravamen of the charges was that on 5 -3 -1999 he incited other workers to go on strike and sit on dharna to force the Company to implement the report of the 5th Pay Commission even though the Company had incurred a loss to the tune of Rupees twenty crores; he did not discharge his duties faithfully from 5 -3 -1999 to 29 -3 -1999 affecting the production of the Company; he abused five senior officers of the Company and used indecent language towards them on 8 -3 -1999 and forced them also to sit on dharna and surrounded them on 9 -3 -1999 and made them to sign a paper promising to implement the report of the Commission upto 14 -3 -1999. According to the respondents these acts constituted grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner. He submitted his reply denying the charges. An Advocate was appointed as enquiry officer. He supplied copies of all the relevant documents to the petitioner. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management and the same number by the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted his detailed report on 3 -10 -2000, that is An -nexure -P -10 -A. All the three charges were held proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and sent a show cause notice to the petitioner alongwith a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner did not submit any representation against the enquiry report. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 6 -9 -2001 (Annexure -P -10 -B).

(2.) THE petitioner 's case is that he retained his lien with his original employer and therefore the disciplinary action could not be taken by OPTEL. It is also stated that the enquiry was conducted by an Advocate but the petitioner 's application for permission to engage a lawyer to defend himself was rejected and this amounts to breach of the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer are perverse and unreasonable and he has assumed that the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him. It is submitted that the petitioner was the General Secretary of the Officers ' Union and he has been victimised. The punishment is said to be harsh and disproportionate.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. A perusal of the appointment letter dated 2 -11 -1995 (Annexure -R -1) shows that the petitioner was given a fresh appointment as an Executive in the pay scale of Rs.2375 -4125. There was an application of the petitioner for this post and his interview was also taken. Thus, the petitioner got a new post and he must be deemed to have abandoned his claim to his inferior position in the M.P. State Electronics Development Corporation. Thus, there was no question of retention of his lien in this Company. There was no order to this effect.