LexM/S. MAHARASHTRA STATE SEEDS CORPN. LTD. versus HARIDAS AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/ ) MIS. MAHARASHTRA STATE SEEDS CORPN. LTD. A v. HARIDAS AND ANR. FEBRUARY 24, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B ') Service Law: Disciplinary Proceeding-On charge of misconduct-Enquiry Officer c proposing punishment of freezing of two increments of pay-Disciplinary proceedings participated by delinquent-Show cause notice regarding punishment of freezing of increments changed to imposition of punishment of dismissal from service by second notice of Disciplinary Authority-Order of Dismissal challenged in Writ Petition-Single Judge of High Court set aside the order of dismissal, the disciplinary proceeding not having been held in D accordance with law-Division Bench of High Court holding the order of -t dismissal in violation of the Rules and procedure of Manual of Departmental ·.1 Enquiries-On appeal, held: order of dismissal was justified -Procedure laid down under the Manual was complied with in disciplinary proceeding- Since Enquiry Officer had no authority to propose for the punishment under the statutory Rules, Disciplinary authority could come to a conclusion E regarding quantum of punishment on his own and rectifY his mistake by issuing second show cause notice-Manual of Departmental Enquiries- Rule 42 . .. Judicial Review-scope of-Jn matters of disciplinary proceedings- F Held: In such matters scope of review is limited-Jn case of interference ~- regarding quantum of punishment, reasons required to be recorded. Respondent No. 1 was the employee of the appellant-Corporation. Acts of misconduct committed by the respondent came to the notice of his superior officer. Disciplinary proceedings were initi?.ted against him. Enquiry Officer found him G guilty of the acts of misconduct viz. he violated instructions issued by the District _.,, Magistrate, misappropriated a huge amount of the Corporation, remained on leave ~ A, without prior approval and failed to attend the meetings. He recommended ' punishment of permanently freezing two increments. Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to the respondent to the effect of freezing his two 613 H 614 SUPREME COURT REPORI s [2006] 2 S.C.R. A increments. It issued another show cause' notice to the effect that in view of serious nature of the charges against him, punishment of dismissal from service would be imposed on him. Services of the respondent was terminated. Respondent challenged the dismissal by filing Writ Petition. Single Judge of High Court held that disciplinary proceedings were not held in accordance with law and hence B directed reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages with the opinion that withholding of two increments was sufficient punishment In appea~ Division Bench held that the orders of the Disciplinary Authority were in violation of Rules and procedure laid down in the Manual of Departmental Enquiries especially Rule 42. It was observed that ifthe Disciplinary Authority intended to t: differ with the Enquiry Officer it had to assign reasons therefor. It held that C punishment of withholding two increments was just and proper. Hence the present appeal Allowing the appeal, the Court D HELD: I.I. It has not been shown as to whether under the statutory rules, the Enquiry Officer was empowered to make any recommendation to the Disciplinary Authority as regards quantum of punishment to be imposed upon a delinquent employee. The High Court has noticed that the disciplinary proceedings are governed by the Manual of Departmental Enquiries. However, no provision therein has been pointed out to show that the Enquiry Officer was statutorily or E otherwise empowered to make recommendations as regards quantum of punishment Reference to Rule 42 of the said manual by the High court was whoUy irrelevant as indisputably the procedures laid down therein for holding departmental enquiry had been complied with. It is not the case of the 1st respondent either before the High Court or before this Court that no charge was F framed and communicated to him and he has not been given an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. It is also not his case that in the said departmental proceedings principles of natural justice had not been complied with. [621-B-DJ 1.2. It is not a case, with respect to the High Court, where the disciplinary G authority had differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The question of differ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.