Writ Petition No. 2857 of 2001. Case: Dwijendra Nath Sen Vs The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Manganese Ore (India) Limited and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2857 of 2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.K. Pathak, Advocate and For Respondents: G.G. Modak, Advocate |
| Judges | B. P. Dharmadhikari and P. N. Deshmukh, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 |
| Judgement Date | April 15, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.
-
By this petition fled under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner/employee has assailed the punishment of dismissal imposed upon him on 16.3.2001 after disciplinary inquiry.
-
We have heard Adv. Pathak for the petitioner and Adv. Modak with Adv. Kale for the respondents.
-
Adv. Pathak has mainly raised following contentions:
(i) The petitioner has been appointed by Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Manganese Ore (India) Limited and hence, that Authority alone is Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority in the case of petitioner. Charge sheet served upon petitioner on 31.7.1998 was by Agent and Deputy General Manager (Mines) i.e. by subordinate Authority. Hence, initiation of proceedings itself is bad.
(ii) During departmental inquiry, petitioner was not permitted to engage a Lawyer and, therefore, a serious prejudice is caused to him.
(iii) Though petitioner submitted list of six witnesses to be examined in defence, Enquiry offer did not allow those witnesses to be examined and, therefore, entire enquiry and findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are vitiated.
(iv) The order of dismissal dated 16.3.2001 is passed by Agent and Deputy General Manager (Mines) and, therefore, same is without jurisdiction. Adv. Pathak has placed reliance upon certain judgments to which we will make reference little later.
-
Adv. Modak appearing for respondents has raised preliminary objection. He points out that entire service put in by petitioner was in Sate of Madhya Pradesh and within jurisdiction of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. During this departmental inquiry, at least on four occasions he approached the High Court at Jabalpur by fling writ petitions. In view of this history, that High Court alone has got jurisdiction to entertain writ petition. He points out that though petitioner challenged order of dismissal dated 16.3.2001 in departmental appeal before Appellate Authority at Nagpur and that appeal has been dismissed by Chairman-cum-Managing Director as appellate Authority on 16.4.2001, that order passed at Nagpur has not been questioned in writ petition. He submits that in the light of previous challenges before Madhya Pradesh High Court, challenge to order passed by the appellate Authority at Nagpur must be raised before that High Court. According to him, a miniscule part of cause of action, at the most, could have been said to have accrued within jurisdiction of this Court, but it is not sufficient and this Court has no reason to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in such matters as doctrine of 'forum conveniens' is specifically attracted. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court to buttress his preliminary objection.
-
Without prejudice to the preliminary objection, on merits, Adv. Modak sates that the provisions of MOIL Employees (Disciplinary) Rules, 1978 which regulated departmental proceedings conducted against petitioner have been specifically amended on 11.8.1995 and the Head of the establishment in which petitioner was working has been constituted as Disciplinary Authority. He has invited our attention to the assertion in paragraph 4 of petition that the petitioner along with two other officers were appointed by General Manager (Personnel), Nagpur on behalf of Chairman-cum-Managing Director. He contends that the Disciplinary Authority as is being pressed into service by petitioner has never appointed petitioner and Chairman-cum-Managing Director was not the appointing authority.
-
Adv. Modak has invited our attention to the provisions contained in the said Rules to show that Rules do not permit...
To continue reading
Request your trial