K.M. JAIN Vs. CHAIRMAN, MP STATE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These connected petitions were heard analogously on the joint request of the parties. Parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Courts. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. I am not inclined to enter into the said aspect because admittedly after some rounds of litigation, as per liberty granted by order dated 29.11.1987 (Annexure-P/1), the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding which ended with imposition of the punishment of demotion by order dated 23.07.1999. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar in Case No.55-170/2000-01. The said authority, by order dated 07.10.2004 rejected the application of petitioner against the punishment order. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.78- 190/2004 before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society. The said authority by order dated 07.10.2006 opined that the disciplinary proceeding suffers from procedural infirmity. Both the charges which were incorrectly found proved. Thus, the punishment order was interfered with by directing the respondents to decide the intervening period on the basis of medical documents filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal interfered in this order by order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure- P/11) which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in Review Case No.03/2009, decided on 21.01.2011 (Annexure-P/12).

(2.) Mr. Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two fold submissions. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Joint Registrar set aside the disciplinary proceedings and punishment because same suffered with procedural impropriety and perversity. The Tribunal without assigning any reason as to why the said finding of Join Registrar is bad in law, erroneously relied on Deputy Registrar's order dated 07.10.2004, which was already set aside by the Joint Registrar. Secondly, the Tribunal has mechanically set aside the order of Joint Registrar without finding any real fault in the same. The review application was also mechanically rejected.

(3.) Per-contra, Mr. Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the employer supported the orders passed by the Tribunal in both the rounds. Mr. Gupta submits that in departmental inquiry the petitioner was given reasonable opportunities to defend himself. The inquiry officer's report was supplied to him alongwith a show cause notice issued by disciplinary authority. In turn, petitioner's response was invited and a final decision was taken. In absence of any procedural infirmity in the departmental inquiry, no interference is warrant by this Court. He submits that scope of interference in a departmental inquiry by this Court is very limited. This Court is sitting as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the entire evidence.