LexA. L. KALRA versus THE PROJECT & EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
. B.
A. L, KALRA
v.
THE PJ,lOJECT & EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
OF INDIA LIMITED .
May 1, 1984 •
{0.A. DESAI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ;J<
A·
Writ Jm;isdictlon of the High {Co>rt ~nder Arilcie 22~ of the Constl(uilon-
P!fblt'c- ·sector· undertakings a_nd ·ot~er "inst'rumentalities of the State.,
C
whether amenab1e to the \vrif' jUrisdiCtion.
D
F
G
ff
B.
Ef!ttct of Conces$io1i. iit the Supreme Court by_ the State as _tO
th~
maintainability or amenablity to the
Writ jurisdiction-Though the
normal procedure is to ren1it to the High Court, the,. Supreme Court,
in order not to protract tne litigatiOtJ "involving ·the JivelihoOd of a party
befof~ it can lt_self hear the appear on nzeri ts. ·
C;_ · ConstitutiOn Of Ind1·a, · 1950 Aft. 1_4'-Whether there should be any
-sp?cific _pleading Jn the _Pe.1ition· pofnting out whether anyone else was·
either stmilarly situated as tire petitioner or disslffiilar/y treated. for
ente.rtaining the charge of discrimination· and· "granting relief .on that -
·ground.
.
';...__,
•
D.· Legislative Policy. wheth-!r judlcia/ly,reVif}wable by the courts-Const/.
tution of India, 1950 Arts.
226, 32 ond 13.
E.
C0nstitutloii of India· 1950~/Jistifzction between Par( XIV and Part III-
. oi the Conslitution-Whethe'r tlze employeeS of.the Corporatioit entitled
to the protecti.on under Part ){_JV of the Constitutioni
P .. Project and Equfpment Corpora,i"an of India _Ltd,
Employees• (Coitduct,
Discipline and Appeal) Rules, .l975-Rules4, 5 ond 25, Scope of-R«le
4 dOes not specify any miscand_uct .and Rufe- 5 does not_ specify that
violation of Rule 4 'is per se misconduct-No disciplinary_ ach'on, there·
fore ,will arise wider Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules.
•
G.. The Project allli Equipment Corporation of India House Building Advance
(Grant and Recovery) .Rules !111le 10. (J) (ii) and the Profits and
Equipments Corporation af India Ltd. conveyance _Advance (Grant an.d
Recovery) Rules 8 and 10 (J)-Whether the non-utilisation of the
advances within the StiPulared tim·e for the purposes of and ·no refund
.thereof imn.iediatel;Y On the- expirY. Of the periOd, ciJnstitlfte Hmisco1ufuCt"
within the meaning ·of the exprwion in Rule 4 (iJ. (iii) o} the 1975
'
.,
. A L. [(ALRA v. J>ROiECT EQPT. CORPN.
.
.
.•
647'
Rules and ifnot whether the domestic enquiry and. the puµishment of ·
A.·.
the disniissal of serviCi is · warrant"'ed •
. H.
Rttlief for a declaraiion in cases of cqntract for .publ!c etpp/oynient~
whether caJi!iot be :;jJecifically ellfOrced.
·
I.: Domestic. EnqiJiry-Whether the
Illquiry Officer. and the Puizishing
Authority niust give reasons before /he major punishment is impased..-'
Whether non giving of.the reasons- makes the decision of dismissal
arbitrary and against prtncip!es of natural j:1stice.
Th~ ·i>rojecit and EQuiPIDent CorPoration of India Ltd. -was formed
in t 9_71_ as a wholly own.ed subsidiary conip_any of State Trading cOrpo ..
radon, a Q.qvernmcat 'O{ lodia Undc1taking. ·In .1976 it was separated
· C
and since then it functions ·as a sep,ttrate.Government of India Undertaking.
·-
The appella'nt who joined th~ .!frvice unller the State Trading Corpo.
ration· origipally and Jater exercised hi> option to serve -the PrOject and
.E.quipment Corporation wilh effect ·rrom NoVenlb"er 9, 197.6.
The appeliant
while-working as Depuly Finance Manager Grade II ap,PHed for and- obtained
(a) an advance in the amount of Rs. 16,050 for purchasing a plot of 1aod on
April 4, 1979 for which be e,lecuted the ·.requisite agreement as rCquired .by
cthe Project & Equipment Corporation of .Jndia Ltd., House.Buildi:ag Advance
(Grent and Recovery) Rul'es, aµd (b) an advance in the amount of_ Rs. 11,000
for purchase of a n-ew mOior cyCle on July 7, 1979 as admissible under ''the·
P_roject and -Equipment Corporation conveyance Advanc~ (Grant and Reco.
very) Rules .. Under these rules- nori-utilisation of the amounts· within tho
time. limit will impose a liability of the refund. of t'be entife a·inount- forth"
with. tog~ther·with penal interest thereon:
The appellant failecJ to·uliiiso
the amounts and also· to re.fund the same.
Therefore, coercive steps were
taken to fecover the en_\ire amQuot of the House Building adv,ioce .from his
p·ay by_ stopping ihe· payment of his salary from 16th: N0Vember1 . 1979.
As regards the conveYance advance, the receipts• etc. for purchase made: in
1980 were accepted,
•
·
.
.
DExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.