T. D. Suresh Babu vs M/S Mmtc Ltd

Sunil Gaur, J

Against imposition of minor penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect in terms of Rule 23(b) of MMTC Employees

Disciplinary and Conduct Rules, 1975, petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal (Annexure P-30) wherein it has been specifically asserted by

petitioner that it was not his duty to supervise the securing movement of high value cargo by weighment and it was the job of the officers posted at

Haldia and many officers working with petitioner were similarly accused but they have been exonerated by accepting the stand of MMTC that the

working of supervisory and the staff function is decentralized. Appellate Authority vide order of 2nd January, 2018 (Annexure P-1) has rejected

petitioner’s appeal (Annexure P-30) without adverting to the afore-referred stand taken by petitioner in the appeal. Attention of this Court has

been drawn to the MMTC Ltd. Employees’ Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 (Annexure P-3) to point out that remedy of review is

available to petitioner as per Rule 34 thereof.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to seek review of the

Appellate Order of 2nd January, 2018 (Annexure P-1) within a period of two weeks. If any such review petition is filed by petitioner, then it be duly

considered by a speaking order in terms of Rule 34 of MMTC Ltd. Employees’ Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 within a period of six

weeks and the fate of the review be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law,

if need be.

With aforesaid directions, this petition and applications are disposed of.

Dasti.