AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Enugopala Gowda
Petitioner, an employee of the respondent Corporation was placed under suspension on 24.08.1987. A charge sheet dated 02.09.1987 was issued and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. He was dismissed from service on 10.11.1987. An appeal preferred thereafter having not been disposed off, W.P. 16469/1987 was filed, which was disposed off by an order dated 05.08.1996, directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Appellate Authority passed an order dated 17.06.1997 and dismissed the appeal. The said orders were questioned in W.P.29104/2000. By an order dated 01.02.2006, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders were quashed, reserving liberty to the respondent-Corporation to hold fresh enquiry in respect of the charges levelied against the petitioner in the charge sheet dated 02.09.1987. An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 24.02.2007, who after conducting the enquiry, submitted report dated 14.08.2007. Copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner along with a show cause notice dated 03.10.2007, to which the petitioner submitted reply dated 16.10.2007. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 20.07.2008, which was questioned by filing an appeal on 11.10.2008.
W.P.34565/2009 was filed to quash the order of dismissal dated 30.07.2008 and to declare the entire proceedings culminating the said order as void and inoperative. Said writ petition was disposed off on 11.12.2009 in view of the submissions made that the petitioner''s appeal would be placed before the Board and after a decision is taken, the same would be communicated to the petitioner.
The Board of Management of the respondent-Corporation, in its 176th Meeting held on 09.11.2009, while considering the appeal of the petitioner vide item No. 12,. has held as follows:
The Board noted that the procedure as per the Rules has been followed and the delinquent employee has been provided ample opportunity to participate in the enquiry and the enquiry has been conducted as per the Principles of Natural Justice.
The Board (sic)so noted that the findings of the Departmental Enquiry conducted by retired judge were justified and observed that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is fully justified as the charges leveled against the said delinquent, employee was proved. The Board disposed off the appeal petition of Shri.Ramachandra Naik by confirming the order of penalty of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
In pursuance of the said resolution, an endorsement dated 06.02.2010, as at Annexure-G, was issued. Questioning the order of dismissal dated 30.07.2008 and the said decision of the Board and the consequential endorsement, noticed supra, this writ petition has been filed.
Sri M.R. Shailendra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that, the order passed by the Appellate Authority, as at Annexure-R2, is arbitrary and illegal. There is neither application of mind nor consideration of the matter in accordance with law and the consequential endorsement issued to the petitioner, as at Annexure-G, is liable to be quashed.
Sri V.Y.Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, on the other hand submitted that, the Appellate Authority having considered the appeal, agreed with the finding of misconduct recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and in the circumstances, the resolution of the Board of Management, as at Annexure-P.2, does not suffer from any in(sic)mirty. Learned Counsel submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Competent Authorities - Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority, being with reference to the materials on record, the writ petition being untenable may be dismissed.
Though the learned Advocates appearing for the parties made submissions even with regard to the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as at Annexure-D I deem it appropriate to dispose off this writ petition on the short ground that the Appellate Authority has not considered the appeal in accordance with Rule 25 of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Development Corporation Limited (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ''the Rules). Rule 18 relates to the appeals. Rule 19 provides for appeal against the orders imposing penalties. Rule 22 is with regard to form and contents of the appeal. Rule 25 is with regard to consideration of the appeal.
The Appellate Authority, while disposing off the appeal, is required to apply mind with regard to the factors enumerated in the Rules. The appeal memorandum is at Annexure-E. The Appellate Authority proceedings, as at Annexure-R2, shows that there is no application of mind and consideration of the matter in accordance with Rule 25. It is true that the Appellate Authority if it is in agreement with that of the Disciplinary Authority may not pass a speaking order, but the Authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind on its part as regards the compliance with the requirement of law while exercising the power under Rule 25 of the Rules. The Appellate Authority has the power and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion in the matter. When such being the position, it is apparent that the appeal of the petitioner has been mechanically dismissed. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority as at Annexure-R2 (Item No 13) and the consequential endorsement as at Annexure-G, being arbitrary, cannot be upheld
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. Annexure-R2 (Item No. 13) and consequential endorsement i.e., Annexure-G, are hereby quashed.
The appeal of the petitioner is directed to be considered by the Board of Management of the respondent-Corporation keeping in view the observations made supra and in accordance with the Rules.
The appeal be considered and decision taken at the earliest and at any event, within a period of 4 months from the date a copy of this order becomes available to the respondent-Corporation or is produced by the petitioner, whichever is earlier.
The contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration by the Appellate Authority.
There shall be no order as to costs.