9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olding the enquiry, a report was submitted by the enquiry officer. According to the report, of the eight charges, four were proved, one partly proved and three not proved. The Managing Director concurred with the enquiry officer's findings and issued a show-cause notice to the appellant as to why the punishment of dismissal of service should not be imposed upon him. No reply appears to have been given to this notice and the respondent was dismissed from service on 25-1-1991. The order of dismissal was also passed by the Managing Director. Challenging the order of dismissal, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. 3. While the writ petition was pending, the Board of Directors of the appellant-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decide was whether the removal of the respondent from service was by a competent authority. 5. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the Managing Director was not competent to terminate the respondent's services as on the date of the passing of the order of termination and, therefore, the order of dismissal was invalid. The High Court was also of the view that this defect could not be rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors. The High Court accordingly set aside the order of termination. Since the respondent had already retired from service, the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent notionally with effect from the date of termination in the same post and pay salaries up to the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not disputed that that meeting had been improperly held and consequently the resolution passed terminating the services of the General Manager was invalid. However, a subsequent meeting had been held by the Board of Directors affirming the earlier resolution. The subsequent meeting had been properly convened. The Court held : ". . . Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance of the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 16-12-1953 to terminate his services, it would not follow that the action of the Chairman could not be ratified in a regularly convened meeting of the Board of Directors. The point is that even assuming that the Chair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of the order and validated it. 11. Reliance on the decision in Krishna Kumar's case (supra) by the respondent is misplaced. In that case, the appellant had been appointed by the Chief Electrical Engineer, the departmental head. He was removed from service by the Divisional Assistant Engineer. The question for determination was whether the appellant had been removed from the service by an authority subordinate to that which had appointed him in violation of article 311(1) of the Constitution. Having considered the affidavits filed, the Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had been removed from the service by an officer who was subordinate in rank to the officer by whom he was appointed. The Divisional Assistant Engineer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
