AGADHU CHARAN GIRI Vs. COMMERCIAL MANAGER INDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11. 3. 1983 passed by opposite party No. 2 in Annexura 1 removing him from service.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that he was serving as a Porter of the Indian Airlines Corporation in the eastern region and was posted to Bhubaneswar Airport. On the allegations that on 10. 9. 1981 alongwith some other persons he trespassed into the house of Shri S. K. Choudhury, Senior Traffic Assistant, abused and manhandled him and further trespassed into the house of Shri A. R. Sen, Traffic Assistant and abused and assaulted him, a disciplinary proceeding was started against him, he was placed under suspension and charges were framed against him. Simultaneously, Shri S. K. Choudhury lodged F. I. R. on allegations of assault at Bhubaneswar Police Station on the basis of which G. R. Case No. 2009 of 1981 was initiated in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. After investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the F, I. R. related to a non -copnizable offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and so he submitted final report on 4. 3. 1982 recommending that the petitioner be discharged from bail bond. The Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate on receipt of the final report did not proceed any further and presumably the case came to an end. Shri A. R. Sen submitted F. I. R. at Bhubaneswar Police Station which culminated in submission of a charge -sheet against the petitioner - for offences under Sections. 448, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was tried in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Bhubaneswar who, by order dated 30. 7 184, acquitted the petitioner of all the charges. The petirirner himself filed a criminal case against Shri S K. Choudhury and Shri A. R. Sen for assault on him which was registered as I. C. C Case No 116 of 1981 in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. The case ended in acquittal. Against the order of acquittal the petitioner appealed to this Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said appeal has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 1982 While the Criminal cases referred to above were sub -judice and without waiting for the results thereof, the disciplinary proceeding continued. The evidence recorded by the Enquiring Officer did not warrant a finding that the charges against the petitioner were established. Despite the aforesaid facts, the petitioner who had rendered more than 31 years of service was awarded a severe punishment of removal from service. Accordingly the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of Annexure -1.

(3.) MR . Ranjit Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Commercial Manager who passed the order of removal (Annexure -1) was not the competent authority to impose the punishment of removal on the petitioner for which Annexure - 1 is liable to be quashed. This contention was disputed by Mr. L. Rath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties on the basis of the latest amendments to the Standing Orders (Regulations) concerning Discipline and Appeals in respect of the employees of the Indian Airlines Corporation. The latest amendment was by notification No. MPDO 2/4502/2/73 which was published in the Gazette of India dated 7 12 1974 The amendment was to Schedule -I of the Standing Orders (Regulations) concerning Discipline and Appeals in respect of the employees of the Indian Airlines Corporation framed by notification No. GS -35/160 and published in the Gazette of India dated 25. 11. 1961. According to the Standing Order 17(g), punishment of removal from the service of the Corporation can be imposed on an employee. According to Schedule -I, as amended in 1974, in respect of employees of Grades 1 to 6, the Regional Departmental Head is the authority competent to impose punishment of removal from the service of the Corporation. In para 9 of the proviso below Schedule -I it has been explained that in the regions of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, the Commercial Manager is one of the Regional Departmental Heads. Therefore, it is amplyclear that the Commercial Manager being a Regional Departmental Head, was competent to impose the punishment of removal from the service of the Corporation in respect of employees of Grades 1 to 6. It was not disputed that the petitioner being a Porter was an employee within Grades 1 to 6 and so the Commercial Manager being the Regional Departmental Head was competent to pass the order of removal (Annexure -1). On this point there seems to have been no illegality and so the contention of Mr. Ranjit Mohanty on this score is not tenable.