GOPALA GOWDA, J, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is the Personnel Officer of Indian Telephone industries (hereinafter referred to as the Company ), has filed this writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned Memorandum at annexure-P dated 19-3-1996 issued by the 2nd respondent Chairman and Managing Director of the company imposing penalty by reducing him to lower post of Grade-II with condition that he should be restored to Grade III after two years and treating the period of suspension as not spent on duty. A direction is also sought by him to grant him all the consequential benefits and to restore the order of Memorandum produced at Annexure-Q by which he was exonerated from the charges leveled against him.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are stated as under :- (I) The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed C. C. No. 2503/ 92 under of Sections 417, 419, 420 r/w 511 and 120-B I. P. C. against the petitioner and one M. V. V. Reddy, Chairman of All India Economic offences Awareness Bureau (AIEOAB), a voluntary organization engaged inter-alia in the prevention of malpractices by the big industrialists. The allegation was that they demanded amounts from some of the industries like Widia (India) Ltd. , B. P. L. Etc,. Consequently, the petitioner was kept under suspension by the company. The Magistrate Court vide order at Annexure-A dated 22- 2-1993 discharged the accused persons holding that there are no grounds to frame charges. The CBI challenged the said order in crl. R. P. No 217/1993 and this Court upheld the order of the magistrate Court vide order at Annexure-T dated 28-9-1997. (II) on 4-10-1993 the company served Chargesheet upon the petitioner alleging that he had unauthorisedly by accepted the appointment order as Regional Director (Vigilance) of AIEOAB and along with others attempted to obtain amounts on 2-7-1991 and 3- 7-1991 thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Company and this he had contravened Rule 4 of I. T. I Conduct, Discipline and appeal Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rues ). The petitioner submitted his written statement as per Annexure-C dated 13-2-1993 denying the charges and requested to drop the proposed disciplinary proceedings against him. However, enquiry officer was appointed to conduct departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner to enquire into the truth or otherwise of the charges alleged against him. In the first instance, one Prabhakaran of the company was appointed as the Presenting Officer but subsequently an inspector of CBI by name M. Ramesh was appointed as the presenting Officer though he was not nominated by the Disciplinary authority to present the case before enquiry officer. It is alleged by the petitioner that Enquiry was conducted with certain procedural irregularities, which has caused prejudice to him. They will be dealt with later. The Enquiry Officer after concluding the enquiry has submitted his report as per Annexure-G dated 27-4-1995 holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. (III) The Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the enquiry report and exonerated the petitioner from the charges. However, a further enquiry report was submitted as per Annexure-H dated 20-9- 1995 at the instance of the disciplinary authority wherein it is stated that there is no need to change the earlier report submitted by the enquiry officer at Annexure-G. The Disciplinary Authority vide annexure-J dated 25-7-1995 disagreed with the enquiry report and held that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges. The same was reiterated under Annexure-L dated 14-11-1995 after receipt of the second report of the enquiry officer. (IV) Against the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority as per annexure-L dated 14-11-1995 the Executive Director-Vigilance of the company had preferred revision petition under Rule 33 of the Rules to the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-M dated 4-1-1996 seeking

Click Here to Read the rest of this document