The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the principles of natural justice in departmental proceedings, including the service of chargesheet, supply of the enquiry report, and payment of subsistence allowance during suspension.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 24.6.94 (Annexure 15) passed by the respondent no. 7, Board of Directors of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. as an appellate authority whereby the petitioners appeal has been dismissed and also for quashing the order dated 3.11.92 (Annexure 13) passed by the respondent no. 2, Chairman cum Managing Director of the Corporation, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service.

2. The petitioner was in the employment of the respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. since 1962 and time to time promoted to different posts and in 1978 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Store Officer, which is a non-executive cadre. In 1985 the petitioners case was considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but due to certain adverse remarks the petitioner was not recommended for promotion. The petitioner protested and represented against the said suppression and ultimately he was promoted to the executive cadre in the post of Junior Executive with effect from 31.12.87. Some time in May, 1989 the petitioner was transferred to Junior Executive (Stores) to Gevra. Project where he became Incharge of the Stores. The petitioners case is that since he was the Incharge of the Store and was the senior most officer available at the site, the entire work of loading, unloading, cleaning and sweeping were done under the supervision of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent no. 6, who was the Manager (Marketing), used to visit the site occasionally and many times gave verbal order to the petitioner, which became very difficult for him to comply the same. The respondent no. 6, therefore, made some complain against the petitioner to the Head Office in the matter relating to deployment of casual labourers, whereupon the petitioner was called upon to explain the circumstances. It appears that when the order and direction issued by the respondent no. 6 was not complied with by the petitioner, he was called upon to show cause as to why a disciplinary action be not taken against him. The petitioner gave a reply dated 2.3.92 stating, inter alia, that since the depot was directly under his supervision, he was responsible for it and the same needs no interference by the respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 4, the Deputy General Manager (Services and Disciplinary Authority) of the petitioner, issued office order dated 12.3.92, whereby the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect. It is stated that the petitioner came to the headquarter for drawing his salary/subsistence allowance but the same was not paid. However, it appears that the petitioner was served with memo of charges and respondent no. 5 was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioners case is that without serving the chargesheet and without giving opportunity of filing show cause the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry. In the enquiry, findings were recorded against the petitioner and ultimately final order of punishment was passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner then filed a Departmental Appeal before the Board of Directors and the said appeal was ultimately dismissed. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing CWJC No. 3372/93 (R). This Court disposed of the writ application on 1.3.94 holding that the appellate authority did not consider points raised by the petitioner in his appeal. Accordingly the appellate order was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority for disposal of the appeal after considering each and every point raised by the petitioner in his appeal. After the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority the impugned order was passed, whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent- Corporation stating, inter alia, that the Board of Directors of the Corporation being the appella