INDERJIT GUPTA Vs. METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letter Patent Appeal of the Patna High Court Rules is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-1-1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1455/96 (R). By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge after quashing the order passed in departmental proceeding remitted back the matter to the disciplinary authority for proceeding afresh from the stage after serving a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follow: - The appellant-petitioner was an employee in the Hindusthan Steel Limited which subsequently merged with the Steel Authority of India Limited. The respondent No. 1, namely Metallurgical Engineering Consultants (India) Limited (here in after referred to as MECON) was established and created under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, being a subsidiary of Steel Authority of India Limited by the Government of India. According to the petitioner appellant, when the unit of Hindusthan Steel Limited was merged with the MECON, the petitioner-appellant was offered appointment under respondent No.1 The appellant's case is that on 6-6-73 a decision was taken by the competent authority to frame a condition afresh for appointment of employees of Hindusthan Steel Limited in new organization, namely MECON, and thereafter an appointment letter was issued to the appellant by the respondent No. 1 appointing him under certain terms and conditions. The appellant's case was that even after the appointment of the appellant the condition of service provided under the service rules of Hindusthan Steel Limited was made applicable in the case of the appellant. The appellant is said to have accepted the letter of appointment and joined MECON. The petitioner-appellant was promoted from E-4 grade to E-5 grade by respondent No. 5 on 2-8-91 with the approval of the Chairman-cum-Manag-mg Director of MECON who is the appointing and disciplinary authority of E-5 grade. The appellant's further case was that the organizational structure of respondent No 1 MECON was published by the competent authority whereby the appellant was under the direct control and supervision of Director (Technology) since he was working in Iron Making. According to the appellant, he has nothing to do with the Director (Projects) who was neither the appellant's immediate controlling authority nor he has to do anything with the 'Iron Making Work'. In the year 1995, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant and the appellant was put under suspension. Charges were framed by respondent No. 3, Director (Projects), and in response thereto, the appellant filed explanation and further filed a petition before the Director (Projects) demanding various documents for the purpose of giving effective reply. In his reply, the appellant disputed and challenged the authority of the Director (Projects) to issue chargesheet and to initiate departmental proceeding. However, one Mr. S. Chitaranjan, was appointed as an Enquiring Officer before whom the appellant appeared and protested for initiation of departmental proceeding and framing of charges by the Director (Projects). The appellant's case was that after conclusion of the departmental proceeding , no enquiry report was given to the petitioner-appellant and on 11-10-95 with the approval of the Director (Projects) the appellant was reverted to the next lower post i.e. E-5 grade to E4 grade. The petitioner-appellant then moved in departmental appeal which was also rejected. The appellant then challenged the aforesaid orders by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1455/96 (R) which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned Judgment and order.

(3.) The learned Single Judge came to a finding that the copy of the enquiry report was not served to the appellant depriving him from making out his defence and thereby serious prejudice was caused to the appellant. On the question of jurisdiction and authority of the Director (Projects), the learned Single Judge held that the Directors have been delegated power of disciplinary authority in respect of employees upto E-5 grade and therefore he was the competent authority for all purposes and accordingly, according to the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.3, the Director (Projects) was the competent authority to impose penalty.