ANAND PRAKASH SEXANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 20th August, 1985 in C.O. No. 19863(W) of 1984. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the writ petition moved by the appellant Sri Anand Prakash Sexana against the order of removal from service passed against the said Sexana by the respondent No. 3, the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council of India.

(2.) The case of the appellant is inter alia that he was appointed as Assistant Director (Chemical) of the Export Inspection Agency by the Export Inspection Council of India sometime in July, 1971. The writ petitioner appellant was confirmed to the said post sometime in February, 1975 and was later on promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Chemical) and was ultimately transferred to Calcutta Office of the Export Inspection Agency. The petitioner was later on transferred to Bombay and was again transferred to Calcutta sometime in 1979 and was holding the said post of the Deputy Director in the Calcutta Office. On 5th June, 1979, the appellant was charge-sheeted by the Director, Inspection and Quality Control of the Export Inspection Council on an allegation that while functioning as Deputy Director (Chemical) in the office of the Export Inspection Agency, Calcutta on or about 23rd July, 1977, the appellant had committed gross misconduct by issuing a fitness certificate in favour of M/s. Chitra Trading Corporation of India, Calcutta, regarding export worthiness of 200 M/T of Aluminium Sulphate which were not in conformity with its specification and by issuing such fitness certificate the appellant had failed to maintain absolute devotion of duty and had, therefore, contravened Rule 3(1) (ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, a departmental enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service of the appellant in the said departmental enquiry. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal to the Chairman, Export Inspection Council and Secretary to the Government of India in terms of Rule 90 of the Export Inspection Agency Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1978, but the appellant was in formed that his appeal had been rejected.

(3.) The appellant thereafter moved a writ petition before this Court inter alia challenging the correctness and propriety of the order of punishment passed on the appellant, whereupon a Rule 'Nisi' was issued in Matter No. 64 of 1982. The learned Trial Judge set aside the order of removal from service and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant but gave liberty to the respondents to impose some lesser punishment in the said departmental proceeding. The respondents thereafter preferred an appeal before this Court. The Court of Appeal thereafter set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge and sent the matter back on remand before the learned Trial Judge for disposal of the writ petition. The learned Trial Judge on a rehearing of the matter set aside the impugned order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and also the order passed by the appellant authority. A further appeal was preferred by the respondents in Appeal No. 80 of 1983 and the Court of Appeal presided over by Mr. Justice M. M. Dutt (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to direct inter alia that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court was of the view that the lesser punishment might be imposed on the respondent and for the said purpose it was not thought desirable to send the matter back to the disciplinary authority. The Court of Appeal directed that instead of removing the appellant from service, his promotion would be withheld for two years and he should be paid 50% of his arrears of salary for the period between the date of the impugned order removing him from service and the date of his reinstatement in terms of the order passed by the Court.