9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the actions of the respondent-Corporation were arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and Art. 16 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the alleged misconduct constituted misconduct within the meaning of the 1975 Rules. 4. Whether the disciplinary and appellate authorities provided reasoned and speaking orders. 5. Reliefs to which the appellant is entitled. Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The Supreme Court held that the writ petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution was maintainable. The respondent-Corporation, being an instrumentality of the State, is comprehended in the expression "other authority" in Art. 12 of the Constitution and is amenable to writ jurisdiction. This was conceded by the respondent in their counter-affidavit. 2. Arbitrariness and Violation of Art. 14 and Art. 16: The Court rejected the contention that executive action resulting in denial of equal protection of law or equality before law cannot be judicially reviewed. It was emphasized that Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action, ensuring fairness and equality of treatment. The Court noted that the appellant was subjected to double punishment, which was arbitrary and violative of Art. 14. 3. Misconduct under 1975 Rules: The Court found that the alleged misconduct did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of the 1975 Rules. Rule 4 (1) (i) and (iii) were cited in the charges, but the Court observed that the appellant's actions did not violate these rules. The failure to refund the house building advance and the delay in purchasing the vehicle were governed by specific rules that provided for penal interest and other consequences, but did not constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary action. 4. Reasoned and Speaking Orders: The Court held that the findings of the inquiry officer, as well as the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, were not supported by reasons. Rule 27 (19) of the 1975 Rules requires the inquiry officer to prepare a report with findings and reasons. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority failed to provide reasoned orders, rendering their decisions invalid. 5. Reliefs: The Court declared the order of removal from service as illegal and invalid, and the appellant was entitled to reinstatement. However, considering the appellant's alternative employment and his partial non-compliance with corporate regulations, the Court awarded 50% of the back wages for the period since his removal, excluding the period of alternative employment. The respondent was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 3000 to the appellant.
|
