P.V. Asha, J.

1. The petitioner, who was working as Area Manager in the Marketing Division of the 1st respondent, is aggrieved by the punishment of removal awarded to him and the rejection of appeal filed against it.

2. The Deputy General Manager (Marketing) of the 1st respondent issued Ext.P1(a) order, placing the petitioner under suspension, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him. It was followed by Ext.P1(b) memo of charges, issued on 02.02.2012, proposing to hold an enquiry under rule 26 of FACT Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1997 for managerial personnel. Petitioner was directed to submit written statement of defence within a period of 10 days. In the articles of charges annexed to it, it was alleged that petitioner, while functioning as Area Manager (Karnataka) conspired with Sri. V. Murali Nair, the then Dy. GM, for the purpose of transferring Sri. Thotaphani, the then Sr. Regional Manager (Bangalore) out of Karnataka State; he instructed M/s. G. Venkata Reddy, the then Sr. Sales Officer (Bangalore), K.R. Rao, Asst. Manager (Sales) Tumkur, P.C. Ramalingappa, the then Asst. Manager (Sales) Mysore and B.B. Gangadharaiah, the then Sales Officer Davanagere, who were his subordinate officers to take part in the conspiracy meeting with Sri. V. Murali Nair, held on 15.12.2008 at Bangalore; petitioner and Sri. V. Murali Nair instructed the aforesaid sales functionaries to instigate FACT dealers and generate vexatious complaints against Sri. Thottaphani for facilitating his transfer.

3. Article no. 2 was that petitioner offered Rs. 1 lakh to Sri. V. Murali Nair as bribe towards arranging the transfer of Sri. Thotaphani and towards that payment petitioner instructed the aforesaid sales officers to contribute Rs. 25,000/- each and paid Rs. 1 lakh to Sri.Murali Nair. The aforesaid acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner were alleged to constitute violation of rule 4(a) and 4(b) and misconducts under rules 7(a), 7(b), 7(e), 7(t) and 7(x) of FACT Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977 for managerial personnel.

4. Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence. Thereafter an enquiry officer was appointed. Petitioner requested for permission to engage a retired employee as defence assistant. Permission was denied. The Enquiry Officer was appointed on 31.03.2012. Ext.P1 enquiry report was submitted thereafter on 12.11.2012. It was found that the charges regarding violation of rule 7(a) and (b) were not proved whereas the charges under rule 7(e), (t) and (x) were found proved. Ext.P2 notice was thereupon issued on 04.03.2013 by the Disciplinary Authority & DGM forwarding a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. Petitioner was directed to make representation if any against the enquiry report. Petitioner submitted his representation on 30.03.2013. Managing Director who is the appointing authority issued Ext.P3 proceedings on 19.08.2014 stating that the disciplinary authority deferred from the enquiry officer on charges under rule 7(a) and (b) as per his note dated 04.03.2013 and held that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct under those provisions also. It was stated that copy of the enquiry report along with the note of the disciplinary authority was given to the petitioner on 04.03.2013 for his representation and petitioner submitted his representation on 30.03.2013. It was further stated that the disciplinary authority had after considering the representation recommended penalty of removal from service in accordance with rule 24(1) of the rules. The appointing authority thereupon considered the case, stating that the competent authority to impose major penalty is the appointing authority. It was found that the misconduct proved against the petitioner warranted the major penalty of removal from service and accordingly he awarded the punishment of removal. It was further ordered that petitioner would be eligible only for subsistence allowance for the p