CHUNILAL MUKHERJEE Vs. GLUCONATE HEALTH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, vide order dated October 9, 2020 (annexed at page 74 of the writ petition), suspended the petitioner and recorded that disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner as per the decisions of the 95th and 118th meetings of the Board of Directors held on June 30, 2011 and June 28, 2016 respectively. Certain other consequential directions were passed in the impugned order dated October 9, 2020. By highlighting the appointment of an enquiry authority immediately thereafter, on October 10, 2020 pursuant to such impugned order (the appointment order being annexed at page 75 of the writ petition), learned counsel for the petitioner argues that such appointment prejudged the merits of the petitioner's contentions.

(2.) Moreover, it is argued that the initial show-cause notice dated September 26, 2020, as well as the subsequent charge sheet dated October 9, 2020 (at page 38 of the writ petition), apparently pertain to certain acts of the stockist, for which the petitioner, being the sales manager of the respondent company, could not be held liable, even prima facie.

(3.) It is further contended that, on the basis of a decision dated June 30, 2011 (subsequent to which the charge-sheet was framed on October 9, 2020) wherein it was recorded that the petitioner was allowed to resume his duty by the company on good faith in the month of May 2014, the present disciplinary action and/or appointment of Enquiry Officer was not maintainable in law.