S.P. SHARMA Vs. HARYANA BREWERIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.P. Sharma, ex-Boiler Superintendent of M/s Haryana Breweries Limited (a Govt. of Haryana Undertaking), has filed the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order Annexure P-4, against the respondent vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner his sought further direction against the Board of the respondent to re-decide his appeal in accordance with law.

(2.) The case, set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Boiler Supervisor with the respondent on 25.12.1978 and was promoted as Boiler Superintendent on 25.8.1984. He was placed under suspension on 7.7.1990 and after holding enquiry he was dismissed by the Managing Director vide order dated 8.3.1991. The order of dismissal is Annexure P-1 on the record. The case of the petitioner further is that the Board of Directors decided his appeal against him. Since the order of dismissal was passed by the Managing Director, who was the punishing authority of the petitioner, therefore, the appeal lied with the Board of Directors of the respondent of which the Managing Director was one of its members and in this manner the Board in which the Managing Director (the punishing authority) is the member could not decide the appeal and it would tantamount to be the judge of his own cause. It was further pleaded by the petitioner that he made a request to the respondent to grant him an opportunity for personal hearing but he was informed that his case will be taken up by the Board on 11.5.1991 at 11.00 a.m. Unfortunately, on the said date and time he could not make himself available before the Board on account of his illness. Resultantly, his appeal was dismissed by the Board which was allegedly influenced by Mrs. Rewa Nayyar, who was one of the effective participants in the meeting of the Board. With these broad allegations, the petitioner has prayed for the quashment of the order Annexure P-4 vide which he was conveyed about the decision of the Board regarding the dismissal of his appeal.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondent which filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondent, the decision of the Board was independent and on merits and it was not influenced by the participation of Mrs. Rewa Nayyar as there were four other Directors who applied their independent mind with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The defence of the respondent further is that the charges against the petitioner were proved and the punishing authority gave an appropriate punishment when the petitioner was dismissed from service. It is further pleaded that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It is further the case of the respondent that the petitioner filed representations against the decision of the Board and those representations were also dismissed on merits. With this broad defence the respondent was prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.