1996 (11) TMI 485 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the dismissal order.
2. Jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play.
4. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
5. Consideration of extraneous factors in the disciplinary proceedings.
6. Nature of the appellate order.
7. Remedy of reinstatement versus compensation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Dismissal Order:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal order dated 23.1.90 (Annx.29) and the appellate order dated 19.4.90 (Annx.33) on the grounds that he was appointed by the General Manager (respondent No. 3) but dismissed by the Superintending Engineer (Drilling) (respondent No. 2), who is lower in rank. The court found that the dismissal order passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, without any delegation of power, is "per se illegal and without jurisdiction" (Para 29). The appellate authority's affirmation of this order does not cure the initial defect (Para 29).

2. Jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority:
The court held that the respondent-Company is an instrumentality of the Central Government and disciplinary actions against its employees are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Para 23). The court rejected the respondents' argument that the writ petition was not maintainable because the respondent-Company does not fall within the definition of "State" under Article 12 (Para 22).

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play:
The court found multiple violations of natural justice:
- The petitioner was not provided with copies of statements recorded ex parte, causing serious prejudice (Para 31).
- The petitioner's request to summon defense witnesses was unjustifiably denied, which is integral to the principles of natural justice (Para 34).
- The process server, an independent witness, was not examined, which the court found to be a serious lapse (Para 38).

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 12:
The court discussed various Supreme Court decisions and concluded that the respondent-Company, being a government-controlled entity with deep and pervasive control by the Central Government, qualifies as "State" under Article 12 (Para 21-22).

5. Consideration of Extraneous Factors in the Disciplinary Proceedings:
The court noted that the Enquiry Officer considered extraneous factors, such as the statement of Shri S.N. Bohra, which did not inspire confidence and were contradicted by the affidavit of the process server (Para 39).

6. Nature of the Appellate Order:
The appellate order was found to be non-speaking and failed to consider crucial questions of law and fact raised by the petitioner. This runs counter to the principles of natural justice and Section 14(4)(C) of the Model Standing Order, which requires the appellate authority to "consider" the appeal (Para 40).

7. Remedy of Reinstatement versus Compensation:
The court rejected the respondents' suggestion to award compensation instead of reinstatement. It emphasized that such a remedy would lead to unjust termination practices and encourage sycophancy and flattery in the workplace (Para 43-45). The court held that reinstatement should be the rule for workmen cadre, and compensation should be a rare exception (Para 48).

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned dismissal order dated 23.1.90 (Annx.29) and the appellate order dated 19.4.90 (Annx.33). The writ petition was allowed with costs, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back-wages and all consequential benefits (Para 49).