The respondent's statement and his counsel's endorsement precluded the need for further evidence in the disciplinary enquiry.

KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J.

( 1 ) THE management, appellant being aggrieved by the Orderof the learned single judge passed in W. P. No. 12408 of 1996, dated 27-1-1999 has preferred this writ appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows. The respondent was working as deputy manager, production control, naval division under the appellant-company. He was charge-sheeted by a charge-sheet dated 21-10-1994 for certain acts of misconduct of drawing unauthorisedly certain silver materials for naval equipment division where there was no requirement of silver parts and he also failed to store them safely in appropriate stores and he failed to produce them when asked by his superiors and other charges as mentioned in the charge-sheet.

( 3 ) THE respondent submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet. The explanation was not satisfactory and the management, appellant decided to hold an enquiry in the matter. An enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer held the enquiry in accordance with law and in accordance with bel executive conduct discipline and appeal Rule s (in short, 'ecda Rule s') observing principles of natural justice.

( 4 ) THE enquiry officer submitted his report holding the respondent guilty of misconduct. The disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice regarding proposed punishment and the respondent represented to the show-cause notice. After considering the evidence on record and representation, the authority took a lenient view and imposed punishment of demotion to the post of senior engineer with effect from 1-12-1995.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the Orderof demotion the respondent preferred an appeal under the provisions of ecda Rule s. Even before passing an Orderby the appellate authority, the respondent filed a writ petition No. 1745 of 1996 which was dismissed by an Orderdated 24-1-1996 with a direction to the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders on the interim prayer in accordance with law within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

( 6 ) THE appellate authority rejected the interim prayer by an Orderdated 27-3-1996. The appellate authority by an Orderdated 3-6-1996 confirmed the Orderof the disciplinary authority. However, the respon dent filed i. a. No. I in W. P. No. 12408 of 1996 for amendment of prayer to quash the Orderdated 3-6-1996 passed by the appellate authority.

( 7 ) THE learned single judge allowed the writ petition No. 12408 of j 1996 on 27-1-1999 holding that the enquiry conducted by the appellants management was in violation of principles of natural justice and directed the appellant-management to redo the matter by giving an opportunity to the respondent-employee to lead fresh evidence and also directed monetary benefits to be given to the respondent-employee from the date of the impugned order. The operative portion of the Orderof the learned single judge reads as follows,"for the reasons stated, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Rule made absolute. Since I have allowed the writ petition, a direction requires to be issued to the respondents to grant the petitioner the monetary benefits from the date of the impugned Ordertill today. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to redo the matter from the stage, the defects are noticed by this court, if they so desire".

( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by this the appellants-management have preferred this writ appeal.

( 9 ) IT is clear from the proceedings that the respondent-employee was defended by the counsel. The defence counsel as well as the respondent have affixed their signatures to the proceedings stating that the respondent does not have any defence witness to be introduced in this enquiry. The defence counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments and this point has not been raised in the arguments. Even in the representation to the show-cause notice as well as in the appeal the respondent has not stated that he has orally requested the enquiry officer to give him an opportunity to l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document