Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
A. C. Sen
MALIK RAM - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTHAN CABLES LTD. - Respondent
Civil Rule 779 (W) Of 1963
Decided On : JANUARY 4, 1966
ARTICLE 311 - GOVERNMENT SERVANT - DISMISSAL - ENQUIRY - NATURAL JUSTICE - STANDING ORDERS - PUBLIC SERVANT - PUBLIC BODY - PUBLIC AUTHORITY - DEPARTMENT OF THE UNION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 - WRIT OF PROHIBITION - COMPANY - CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION - CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE - TRANSFER OF SHARES - APPROVAL OF PRESIDENT OF INDIA - APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS - APPROVAL OF PRESIDENT OF INDIA - MANAGING DIRECTOR - APPOINTMENT BY PRESIDENT OF INDIA - AGREEMENT WITH STANDARD TELEPHONE COMPANY LIMITED OF LONDON - EXPERT TECHNICAL SERVICE - INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1951 - NOT APPLICABLE - SECTION 620 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - NOT APPLICABLE - CLAUSE (12) OF SECTION 21 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - NOT APPLICABLE - EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (COMPULSORY NOTIFICATION OF VACANCIES) ACT, 1959 - NOT APPLICABLE - S. K. MUKHERJEE V. CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL - FOLLOWED - SUBODH RANJAN GHOSH V. SINDRI FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED - FOLLOWED - STANDING ORDER NO. 14 (C) - ENQUIRY INTO ALLEGED MISCONDUCT - STANDING ORDER NO. 14 (E) - COPY OF ORDER INFLICTING PUNISHMENT TO BE GIVEN TO EMPLOYEE - NO PROVISION FOR SUPPLYING COPIES OF DEPOSITIONS OR REPORT OF ENQUIRING OFFICER - OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE - NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - NOT APPLICABLE - DISMISSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDING ORDERS - PROPER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an ex-employee of Hindusthan Cables Limited, challenged his dismissal on the ground that he was not supplied with a copy of the report submitted by the enquiring officer to the dismissing authority, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the privileges conferred on civil servants by Article 311 of the Constitution, as the respondent company was not a public body, public authority, or a department of the Union of India. The court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to copies of the depositions or the report of the enquiring officer, as there was no provision for the same in the standing orders of the company. The court also held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the failure to supply him with the copies, as he had shown cause without raising any grievance on this ground.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a Government servant within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to copies of the depositions and the report of the enquiring officer. 3. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the failure to supply him with the copies.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not a Government servant within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution, as the respondent company was not a public body, public authority, or a department of the Union of India. The court relied on the certificate of incorporation issued by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, which was conclusive evidence that the company was duly registered under the Companies Act. The court also held that the extensive control exercised by the President of India over the company did not make it a department of the Union of India. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to copies of the depositions and the report of the enquiring officer, as there was no provision for the same in the standing orders of the company. The court held that the rules of natural justice did not require the supply of such copies, as the petitioner was not entitled to a notice to show cause as a matter of right. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the failure to supply him with the copies, as he had shown cause without raising any grievance on this ground.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule nisi with costs, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is an ex-employee of Hindusthan Cables Limited and is aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed against him on the 23rd of February, 1963. He has asked for a writ in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the directions contained in the letter dated February 23, 1963, that is to say, the letter by which he was dismissed from service with immediate effect.
( 2 ) HIS complaint is that though he was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed, he was not supplied with the copy of the report submitted by the enquiring officer to the dismissing authority. It is not disputed that an enquiry was made into the charges levelled against him. He does not appear to be seriously aggrieved by anything that took place at the stage of the enquiry. As a matter of fact, the rule has been issued only on ground No. 1, which runs as follows: ". . . . . . the petitioner was not supplied with necessary statements and even a copy of the finding of the enquiry officer and the said materials were relied upon without giving the petitioner any reasonable opportunity of explaining them. "
( 3 ) THAT the petitioner was not supplied with the papers mentioned in ground No. A, is not denied; on the contrary it is stated in the affidavit in opposition that the petitioner was not entitled to the statements or to a copy of the findings of the enquiring officer. Paragraph 9 in the affidavit in opposition runs as follows :". . . . . . I say that the petitioner is not entitled to copies of the statements of witnesses and the report of the enquiry officer and, as such, the same was not supplied to him. The petitioner was at liberty to take his own notes in course of the enquiry proceedings. "
( 4 ) THEREFORE, it is admitted that the petitioner was not supplied with the statements of the witnesses and the report of the enquiring officer.
( 5 ) THE question for determination is whether the order of dismissal passed on February 23, 1963, can be challenged by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1, namely, Hindusthan Cables Limited, that the petitioner not being a Government servant within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution is not entitled to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further contended that if the petitioner feels that
he has been dismissed in violation of the terms of the contract between him and the company, his remedy lies in filing a suit for compensation for violation of the terms of the contract. So it is necessary for me to decide whether the petitioner can be regarded as a member of a civil service of the Union or as one holding a civil post under the Union. From the materials on the record I am satisfied that the respondent No. 1, namely, Hindusthan Cables Limited, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. From paragraph 3 of the further affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it appears that the company was originally incorporated as Hindusthan Cables Private Limited, which was subsequently changed to Hindusthan Cables Limited and was incorporated on the 4th of August, 1952, under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 and that the company is a private limited company. The certificate of incorporation was produced before me and from that I am satisfied that it is a private company limited by shares within the meaning of the Indian Companies Act.
( 6 ) SECTION 35 of the Companies Act, 1956, says that a certificate of incorpo-ration. given by the registrar in respect of any association shall be conclusive evidence that all the requirements of this Act have been complied with in respect of registration and matters precedent and incidental thereto, and that the association is a company authorised to be registered and duly registered under this Act.
( 7 ) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioner that, even though respondent No. 1 is a company within th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
