Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Satyabrpta Sinha & Basudeva Panigrahi, JJ.
Smith Stranistreet Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Vs.
Prabir Kumar Sen Gupta
F.M.A.T. No. 3081 of 1993
Decided On : April 21, 1995
SERVICE LAW - INTERIM INJUNCTION - ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF ENQUIRY OFFICER - INTERIM ORDER - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - PUBLIC INTEREST - JUDICIAL COMITY:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the respondent company, challenged the second show cause notice issued to him for alleged misconduct. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition questioning the chargesheet and the appointment of the enquiry officer. The learned Single Judge had passed an interim order directing the company to change the enquiry officer and proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the appropriate service rules. The petitioner had derived benefits from the said order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, which directed the company not to give effect to the final order without the leave of the Court, could not be sustained. The Court observed that the order was passed without considering the principles of law relating to the grant of injunctions, such as the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The Court also noted that the order was contrary to an earlier interim order passed by another Judge, which had directed the company to change the enquiry officer and proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the appropriate service rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned interim order passed by the learned Single Judge was sustainable in law? 2. Whether the order was contrary to an earlier interim order passed by another Judge?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned interim order was not sustainable in law as it was passed without considering the principles of law relating to the grant of injunctions. The Court observed that the order was not in conformity with the earlier interim order passed by another Judge, which had directed the company to change the enquiry officer and proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the appropriate service rules. 2. The Court also noted that the order was contrary to the principle of judicial comity, which requires courts to maintain a harmonious relationship with each other and avoid passing conflicting orders.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, the Court clarified that it would be open to the petitioner to question the order of punishment which may be imposed upon him, if any, by filing an application for amendment of the writ petition.
Satyabrata Sinha, J.: This appeal is directed against an interim order dated 26th August, 1993 passed by Susanta Chatterjee, J. in C.O. No. 10472(W) of 1993, whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge, inter alia, directed that the pendency of the writ petition will not prevent the writ petitioner from filing a reply to the second show cause and the respondent will proceed with the enquiry and pass a final order and communicate the same to the petitioner but no effect should be given to the final order without the leave of the Court.
2. The writ petitioner respondent herein filed a writ petition, inter alia, questioning a notice issued to him whereby and whereunder he was asked to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from services.
3. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions of the parties, the following fact may be noticed.
4. A chargesheet was issued to the writ petitioner/respondent on 6.8.1990 whereto he submitted his reply on 27.8.1990. A notice of enquiry was served on him on 5.6.91 whereupon the writ petitioner raised an objection with regard to the appointment of the enquiry officer. A writ petition was filed by the respondent on 12.12.1991, inter alia, questioning the legality or validity of the said chargesheet as also the propriety of appointment of the said enquiry officer who was said to be below in rank to the writ petitioner. In the said writ petition an interim order was passed on 19.12.1991 to the following effect:
“The respondent shall change the Enquiry Officer and appoint a disinterested Officer to be the Enquiry Officer in this case.
The enquiry shall be proceeded strictly in accordance with appropriate service rules and giving all necessary reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend the case. It is for the respondent to lead evidence first and thereafter the petitioner shall be directed to enter into the defence.”
5. The said order has been acted upon and the writ petitioner-respondent has derived benefits therefrom. The appellant changed the enquiry officer and upon holding the enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted.
6. Thereafter a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.8.1993. The petitioner prayed for time to submit his second show cause.
7. On 26.8.1993 the respondent filed the instant writ application whereupon the impugned interim order dated 26.8.93 has been passed.
8. This appeal has been preferred on 3.12.1993.
9. Mr. Mallick appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that the writ petition was heard on 12.8.94 and 22.8.94. The learned Counsel submitted that the interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge should be set aside, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent company is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel in this connection has relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court of India as also of this Court. The learned Counsel contended that so far as the appellant is concerned it does not have any public duty to discharge and thus it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. It was submitted that even if it be held that the appellant is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the right of the petitioner being within the realm of private law as contra...distinguished from public law, the writ petition should not be entertained. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Anupam Ghosh vs. Union of India, reported in 1991 Lab. I.C. 2261. It was submitted that in any event, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge being not in conformity with the order passed by Ahmed, J. on 19.12.1991, the same should be set aside.
10. Mr. Kashi Kanta Maitra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that the appellant being a statutory authority having its existence in terms of Smith Stanistreet & Company Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1977 must be held to be a 'State'
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
