M. S. LIBERHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) IMPUGNING the judgment dated September 22, 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19085 of 1999, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

( 2 ) THE undisputed factual matrix in this writ Appeal is that the respondents have removed the appellant herein from service for certain allegations of misconduct committed by him during his tenure of service. The appellant challenged the order of removal in Writ petition No. 8309 of 1994. By order dated august 6, 1997, the learned single Judge after appreciating various contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, allowed the writ Petition in part and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority (Sub-Committee of directors) to consider the Enquiry Officer s report and the explanation/comments of the writ petitioner in relation thereto and to pass appropriate orders thereon based on the material already on record after affording an opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner. The impugned order of the disciplinary Authority dated December 1, 1993 removing the petitioner from service and the consequential office order dated December 30, 1993 as also the order of the Appellate authority (Board of Directors) dated september 2, 1994 affirming the order of the disciplinary Authority were set aside by the learned single Judge. Till final orders are passed by the Disciplinary Authority, status quo, as on the date of the order with regard to continuance of the writ petitioner in service was ordered to continue. It would be appropriate to extract in verbatim the operative portion of the order which reads thus: ". . . . . (A) The impugned order of the disciplinary Authority dated December 1, 1993 removing the petitioner from service and the consequential office order dated december 30, 1993 as also the order of the appellate Authority (Board of Directors) dated September 2, 1994 affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority be and hereby set aside. (B) The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary authority (Sub- Committee of Directors) to consider the Enquiry Officer s Report and the explanation (comments) of the petitioner in relation thereto and to pass appropriate orders thereon based on the material already on record after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. (C) Till final orders are passed by the disciplinary Authority, the status quo as on to-day with regard to continuance of the petitioner in service shall continue. . . . "

( 3 ) IN Writ Appeal No. 942 of 1997 against the order dated August 6, 1997 in Writ Petition no. 8309 of 1994 the Division Bench observed:". . . . no interference in the impugned judgment is required in so far as the view expressed by the learned single Judge on the question-whether the Vice-Chairman and managing-Director is the disciplinary authority for all penalties including those for imposition of which penalties the committee of Directors alone is competent, as well as on the question-whether the committee of Directors, which has finally decided to impose the penalty of removal from service under Rule 4. 7 of the Nizam sugar Factory Limited Employees disciplinary and Appeal Rules, is competent. "

( 4 ) THE Bench was of the further view that:"when the rule aforementioned provides for imposition of penalty by the Board, action by the Committee of two members of the board, when the Board consists of as many as seven members, in ordering for imposition of penalty of removal from service is bad in law and thus the matter, as ordered to be remitted to the Board for considering the report of the Enquiry officer as well as comments/explanations, if any, of the appellant in respect of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, is a proper and valid order. "

( 5 ) ON the question as to whether the appellant, who was permitted to retire from service during the pendency of the enquiry, could be punished, it was further observed:"remand, however, of the matter shall afford to the app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document