VIDYA DHAR Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service of Hindustan Copper Limited at Khetri complex on his appointment as Smelter (C) by order dated October 5, 1973. On account of his alleged participation in the strike the employer invoked Clause 7 of the Model Standing Orders and terminated petitioner's service with effect from February 28, 1975. However, he was reappointed with effect from March 8, 1975 after he had tendered unqualified apology. Then he was promoted as Smelter (B ).

(2.) A charge sheet dated November 27, 1984 was served upon the petitioner with the allegation of his having committed misconduct under Clauses 14 (3) (b) and (h) of the Model Standing Orders. Petitioner submitted his reply and then an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. On the basis of the report of Enquiry Officer a show cause notice dated September 11, 1985 was served upon the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his explanation as to why he be not dismissed from Company's service. A reply to the show cause notice dated September 11, 1985 was submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction : in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Khetri. An application for temporary injunction was also filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. This application was decided by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate on Octo-: ber 11, 1985. On October 16, 1985 the employer passed the order of punishment whereby the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service. Against his removal from service the petitioner filed an appeal before the Executive Director of: the respondent Company. This appeal was rejected by an order dated Feburary 12, 1986 of the Executive Director.

(3.) AGAINST the order of dismissal as well as; the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed writ petition before the High Court. His Writ Petition No. 1594/86 Vidya Dhar v. Hindustan Copper Limited was decided by the High Court on October 16, 1986. The High Court quashed the order passed by the appellate authority and directed the Company to place the appeal of petitioner before the competent authority. The Court also observed that the penalty of dismissal awarded against the petitioner, prima facie appeared to be disproportionate. However, the matter was left to be decided by the appellate authority even on the question of quantum of punishment.